Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay: do not discard the swab

We compared the performance of ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay nasal swabs with RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 in an outbreak setting, determining whether addition of RT-PCR of residual nasal swabs (rNS) (post ID NOW™ elution) would increase overall analytic sensitivity. Devices were placed at 2 long term and 1 acute care sites and 51 participants were recruited. Prospective paired nasopharyngeal and nasal samples were collected for RT-PCR and ID NOW™.  ID NOW™ had a positive and negative categorical agreement of 86% and 93% compared to RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal swabs. Sensitivity and specificity of the ID NOW™ was 86% and 100%, positive and negative predictive value was 100% and 95% (COVID-19 positivity rate: 8%). Addition of rNS RT-PCR increased the positive and negative categorical agreement to 93% and 97%. Based on these results, we propose an alternative workflow which includes complementary testing of rNS on a secondary assay.

Extracorporeal treatment for ethylene glycol poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Ethylene glycol (EG) is metabolized into glycolate and oxalate and may cause metabolic acidemia, neurotoxicity, acute kidney injury (AKI), and death. Historically, treatment of EG toxicity included supportive care, correction of acid-base disturbances and antidotes (ethanol or fomepizole), and extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis. With the wider availability of fomepizole, the indications for ECTRs in EG poisoning are debated. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXTRIP methods to determine the utility of ECTRs in the management of EG toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, either strong ("we recommend") or weak/conditional ("we suggest"), were graded according to the GRADE approach. A total of 226 articles met inclusion criteria. EG was assessed as dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis (level of evidence = B) as was glycolate (Level of evidence = C). Clinical data were available for analysis on 446 patients, in whom overall mortality was 18.7%. In the subgroup of patients with a glycolate concentration ≤ 12 mmol/L (or anion gap ≤ 28 mmol/L), mortality was 3.6%; in this subgroup, outcomes in patients receiving ECTR were not better than in those who did not receive ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup made the following recommendations for the use of ECTR in addition to supportive care over supportive care alone in the management of EG poisoning (very low quality of evidence for all recommendations): i) Suggest ECTR if fomepizole is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or ii) Recommend ECTR if ethanol is used and EG concentration > 50 mmol/L OR osmol gap > 50; or iii) Recommend ECTR if glycolate concentration is > 12 mmol/L or anion gap > 27 mmol/L; or iv) Suggest ECTR if glycolate concentration 8-12 mmol/L or anion gap 23-27 mmol/L; or v) Recommend ECTR if there are severe clinical features (coma, seizures, or AKI). In most settings, the workgroup recommends using intermittent hemodialysis over other ECTRs. If intermittent hemodialysis is not available, CKRT is recommended over other types of ECTR. Cessation of ECTR is recommended once the anion gap is < 18 mmol/L or suggested if EG concentration is < 4 mmol/L. The dosage of antidotes (fomepizole or ethanol) needs to be adjusted during ECTR.

Treating ethylene glycol poisoning with alcohol dehydrogenase inhibition, but without extracorporeal treatments: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Ethylene glycol is metabolized to toxic metabolites that cause acute kidney injury, metabolic acidemia, and death. The treatment of patients with ethylene glycol poisoning includes competitively inhibiting alcohol dehydrogenase with ethanol or fomepizole to prevent the formation of toxic metabolites, and extracorporeal treatments such as hemodialysis to remove ethylene glycol and its metabolites. In the absence of significant metabolic acidemia or kidney injury, it is hypothesized that extracorporeal treatments may be obviated without adverse outcomes to the patient if alcohol dehydrogenase inhibitors are used.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to: (1) identify indicators predicting ADH inhibitor failure in patients with ethylene glycol poisoning treated with either ethanol or fomepizole for whom extracorporeal treatment was not performed (aside from rescue therapy, see below) (prognostic study), and (2) validate if the anion gap, shown in a previous study to be the best surrogate for the glycolate concentration, is associated with acute kidney injury and mortality (anion gap study).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify all reported patients with ethylene glycol poisoning treated without extracorporeal treatments but with either fomepizole (fomepizole monotherapy) or ethanol (ethanol monotherapy). Analyses were performed using both one case per patient and all cases (if multiple events were reported for a single patient). Data were compiled regarding poisoning, biochemistry, and outcomes. Treatment failure was defined as mortality, worsening of acid-base status, extracorporeal treatments used as rescue, or a worsening of kidney or neurological function after alcohol dehydrogenase inhibition was initiated. Also, we performed an analysis of previously described anion gap thresholds to determine if they were associated with outcomes such as acute kidney injury and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 115 publications identified, 96 contained case-level data. A total of 180 cases were identified with ethanol monotherapy, and 231 with fomepizole monotherapy. Therapy failure was noted mostly when marked acidemia and/or acute kidney injury were present prior to therapy, although there were cases of failed ethanol monotherapy with minimal acidemia (suggesting that ethanol dosing and/or monitoring may not have been optimal). Ethylene glycol dose and ethylene glycol concentration were predictive of monotherapy failure for ethanol, but not for fomepizole. In the anion gap study (207 cases), death and progression of acute kidney injury were almost nonexistent when the anion gap was less than 24 mmol/L and mostly observed when the anion gap was greater than 28 mmol/L.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that in patients with minimal metabolic acidemia (anion gap <28 mmol/L), fomepizole monotherapy without extracorporeal treatments is safe and effective regardless of the ethylene glycol concentration. Treatment failures were observed with ethanol monotherapy which may relate to transient subtherapeutic ethanol concentrations or very high ethylene glycol concentrations. The results are limited by the retrospective nature of the case reports and series reviewed in this study and require prospective validation.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Methotrexate Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

Methotrexate is used in the treatment of many malignancies, rheumatological diseases, and inflammatory bowel disease. Toxicity from use is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. Rescue treatments include intravenous hydration, folinic acid, and, in some centers, glucarpidase. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature following published EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) methods to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments in the management of methotrexate toxicity. The quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations (either "strong" or "weak/conditional") were graded according to the GRADE approach. A formal voting process using a modified Delphi method assessed the level of agreement between panelists on the final recommendations. A total of 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic data were available on 90 patients (89 with impaired kidney function). Methotrexate was considered to be moderately dialyzable by intermittent hemodialysis. Data were available for clinical analysis on 109 patients (high-dose methotrexate [>0.5 g/m²]: 91 patients; low-dose [≤0.5 g/m²]: 18). Overall mortality in these publications was 19.5% and 26.7% in those with high-dose and low-dose methotrexate-related toxicity, respectively. Although one observational study reported lower mortality in patients treated with glucarpidase compared with those treated with hemodialysis, there were important limitations in the study. For patients with severe methotrexate toxicity receiving standard care, the EXTRIP workgroup: (1) suggested against extracorporeal treatments when glucarpidase is not administered; (2) recommended against extracorporeal treatments when glucarpidase is administered; and (3) recommended against extracorporeal treatments instead of administering glucarpidase. The quality of evidence for these recommendations was very low. Rationales for these recommendations included: (1) extracorporeal treatments mainly remove drugs in the intravascular compartment, whereas methotrexate rapidly distributes into cells; (2) extracorporeal treatments remove folinic acid; (3) in rare cases where fast removal of methotrexate is required, glucarpidase will outperform any extracorporeal treatment; and (4) extracorporeal treatments do not appear to reduce the incidence and magnitude of methotrexate toxicity.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Healthcare Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators.

OBJECTIVE

Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19.

METHODS

IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Therapeutic Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) During Pandemics: Double-Edged Swords

Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy’s efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing

BACKGROUND

Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA.

OBJECTIVE

IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Data on the clinical performance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization is mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared to reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared to asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

Extracorporeal treatments for isoniazid poisoning: Systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Isoniazid toxicity from self-poisoning or dosing errors remains common in regions of the world where tuberculosis is prevalent. Although the treatment of isoniazid poisoning is centered on supportive care and pyridoxine administration, extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis, have been advocated to enhance elimination of isoniazid. No systematic reviews or evidence-based recommendations currently exist on the benefit of ECTRs for isoniazid poisoning. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup systematically collected and rated the available evidence on the effect of and indications for ECTRs in cases of isoniazid poisoning. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, screened studies, extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes, and measurement characteristics, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods. Forty-three studies (two animal studies, 34 patient reports or patient series, and seven pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 60 patients, most treated with hemodialysis (n = 38). The workgroup assessed isoniazid as "Moderately Dialyzable" by hemodialysis for patients with normal kidney function (quality of evidence = C) and "Dialyzable" by hemodialysis for patients with impaired kidney function (quality of evidence = A). Clinical data for ECTR in isoniazid poisoning were available for 40 patients. Mortality of the cohort was 12.5%. Historical controls who received modern standard care including appropriately dosed pyridoxine generally had excellent outcomes. No benefit could be extrapolated from ECTR, although there was evidence of added costs and harms related to the double lumen catheter insertion, the extracorporeal procedure itself, and the extracorporeal removal of pyridoxine. The EXTRIP workgroup suggests against performing ECTR in addition to standard care (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) in patients with isoniazid poisoning. If standard dose pyridoxine cannot be administered, we suggest performing ECTR only in patients with seizures refractory to GABA_A receptor agonists (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

Evaluation of the BioFire® COVID-19 test and Respiratory Panel 2.1 for rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples

The BioFire® COVID-19 Test and Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) are rapid, fully automated assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal swabs. In the case of the RP2.1, an additional 21 viral and bacterial pathogens can be detected. Both tests have received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for use in clinical laboratories. We evaluated the performance characteristics of these tests in comparison to a laboratory-developed real-time PCR assay targeting the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and E genes. A total of 78 tests were performed using the BioFire COVID-19 Test, including 30 clinical specimens and 48 tests in a limit of detection study; 57 tests were performed using the RP2.1 for evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 detection, including 30 clinical specimens and 27 tests for limit of detection. Results showed 100% concordance between the BioFire assays and the laboratory-developed test for all clinical samples tested, and acceptable performance of both BioFire assays at their stated limits of detection. Conclusively, the BioFire COVID-19 Test and RP2.1 are highly sensitive assays that can be effectively used in the clinical laboratory for rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Extracorporeal treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are commonly used to treat conditions such as arterial hypertension and supraventricular dysrhythmias. Poisoning from these drugs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in the management of CCB poisoning.

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, summarized findings, and formulated recommendations following published EXTRIP methods.

RESULTS

A total of 83 publications (6 in vitro and 1 animal experiments, 55 case reports or case series, 19 pharmacokinetic studies, 1 cohort study and 1 systematic review) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of ECTR. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 210 patients (including 32 for amlodipine, 20 for diltiazem, and 52 for verapamil). Regardless of the ECTR used, amlodipine, bepridil, diltiazem, felodipine, isradipine, mibefradil, nifedipine, nisoldipine, and verapamil were considered not dialyzable, with variable levels of evidence, while no dialyzability grading was possible for nicardipine and nitrendipine. Data were available for clinical analysis on 78 CCB poisoned patients (including 32 patients for amlodipine, 16 for diltiazem, and 23 for verapamil). Standard care (including high dose insulin euglycemic therapy) was not systematically administered. Clinical data did not suggest an improvement in outcomes with ECTR. Consequently, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either amlodipine, diltiazem or verapamil (strong recommendations, very low quality of the evidence (1D)). There were insufficient clinical data to draft recommendation for other CCBs, although the workgroup acknowledged the low dialyzability from, and lack of biological plausibility for, ECTR.

CONCLUSIONS

Both dialyzability and clinical data do not support a clinical benefit from ECTRs for CCB poisoning. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance the elimination of amlodipine, diltiazem, and verapamil in patients with severe poisoning.

Informing Healthcare Decisions with Observational Research Assessing Causal Effect. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Rationale: Decisions in medicine are made on the basis of knowledge and reasoning, often in shared conversations with patients and families in consideration of clinical practice guideline recommendations, individual preferences, and individual goals. Observational studies can provide valuable knowledge to inform guidelines, decisions, and policy.

Objectives: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) created a multidisciplinary ad hoc committee to develop a research statement to clarify the role of observational studies—alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—in informing clinical decisions in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.

Methods: The committee examined the strengths of observational studies assessing causal effects, how they complement RCTs, factors that impact observational study quality, perceptions of observational research, and, finally, the practicalities of incorporating observational research into ATS clinical practice guidelines.

Measurements and Main Results: There are strengths and weakness of observational studies as well as RCTs. Observational studies can provide evidence in representative and diverse patient populations. Quality observational studies should be sought in the development of ATS clinical practice guidelines, and medical decision-making in general, when 1) no RCTs are identified or RCTs are appraised as being of low- or very low-quality (replacement); 2) RCTs are of moderate quality because of indirectness, imprecision, or inconsistency, and observational studies mitigate the reason that RCT evidence was downgraded (complementary); or 3) RCTs do not provide evidence for outcomes that a guideline committee considers essential for decision-making (e.g., rare or long-term outcomes; “sequential”).

Conclusions: Observational studies should be considered in developing clinical practice guidelines and in making clinical decisions.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing

BACKGROUND

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance.

OBJECTIVE

The IDSA's goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space.

METHODS

IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Academy of Neurology, and American College of Rheumatology: 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Lyme Disease

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

Extracorporeal Treatment for Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, and Quinine Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

BACKGROUND

Although chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and quinine are used for a range of medical conditions, recent research suggested a potential role in treating COVID-19. The resultant increase in prescribing was accompanied by an increase in adverse events, including severe toxicity and death. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup sought to determine the effect of and indications for extracorporeal treatments in cases of poisoning with these drugs.

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods.

RESULTS

A total of 44 studies (three in vitro studies, two animal studies, 28 patient reports or patient series, and 11 pharmacokinetic studies) met inclusion criteria regarding the effect of extracorporeal treatments. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic analysis was available for 61 patients (13 chloroquine, three hydroxychloroquine, and 45 quinine). Clinical data were available for analysis from 38 patients, including 12 with chloroquine toxicity, one with hydroxychloroquine toxicity, and 25 with quinine toxicity. All three drugs were classified as non-dialyzable (not amenable to clinically significant removal by extracorporeal treatments). The available data do not support using extracorporeal treatments in addition to standard care for patients severely poisoned with either chloroquine or quinine (strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Although hydroxychloroquine was assessed as being non-dialyzable, the clinical evidence was not sufficient to support a formal recommendation regarding the use of extracorporeal treatments for this drug.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of our systematic review and analysis, the EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using extracorporeal methods to enhance elimination of these drugs in patients with severe chloroquine or quinine poisoning.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Health Care Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 is a highly transmissible virus that can infect health care personnel and patients in health care settings. Specific care activities, in particular aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in health care facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect health care personnel (HCP). Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators.

OBJECTIVE

Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19.

METHODS

IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including front-line clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance.

OBJECTIVE

The IDSA's goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assists clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space.

METHODS

IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 15 diagnostic recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered low to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform administration of immunosuppressive therapy. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of COVID-19. There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature.

OBJECTIVE

Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians and other health-care professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise. Process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.

Diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

This document presents the American Thoracic Society clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD).

TARGET AUDIENCE

Clinicians investigating adult and pediatric patients for possible PCD.

METHODS

Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were conducted to summarize all available evidence pertinent to our clinical questions. Evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for diagnosis and discussed by a multidisciplinary panel with expertise in PCD. Predetermined conflict-of-interest management strategies were applied, and recommendations were formulated, written, and graded exclusively by the nonconflicted panelists. Three conflicted individuals were also prohibited from writing, editing, or providing feedback on the relevant sections of the manuscript.

RESULTS

After considering diagnostic test accuracy, confidence in the estimates for each diagnostic test, relative importance of test results studied, desirable and undesirable direct consequences of each diagnostic test, downstream consequences of each diagnostic test result, patient values and preferences, costs, feasibility, acceptability, and implications for health equity, the panel made recommendations for or against the use of specific diagnostic tests as compared with using the current reference standard (transmission electron microscopy and/or genetic testing) for the diagnosis of PCD.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel formulated and provided a rationale for the direction as well as for the strength of each recommendation to establish the diagnosis of PCD.

Clinical impact of positive Propionibacterium acnes cultures in orthopedic surgery

BACKGROUND

The clinical significance of a positive culture to Propionibacterium acnes in orthopedic specimens remains unclear, whether about its role as a contaminant or a pathogen, or its impact as a coinfectant. Therefore, we performed a retrospective study to provide a more accurate description of the clinical impact of P. acnes in an orthopedic population aiming to determine: 1) if there is a clinical difference between P. acnes infection and contamination? 2) If there is a clinical difference between P. acnes monoinfection, and coinfection.

HYPOTHESIS

There is a clinical difference between P. acnes infection and contamination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were selected over a five-year period, and those with a minimum of one positive culture for P. acnes, from any intraoperative orthopedic tissue sample, were included in the study. P. acnes infection was defined as the isolation of P. acnes from≥2 specimens, or in only one specimen, in the presence of typical perioperative findings and/or local signs of infection.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients had a positive P. acnes culture, 35 of which were considered to be infected. The infections affected mostly males (29/35-83%), occurred mostly in shoulders (22/35-63%), and at a site already containing an orthopedic implant (32/35-91%). Local inflammatory signs were present in half of the cases when an infection was diagnosed. Coinfection with other pathogens was present in 31% of patients (11/35). When comparing patients coinfected with P. acnes, and those who were monoinfected, the latter presented less often with local inflammatory signs. Recurrence rate was 24% (8/35) and the only risk factor for recurrence was the presence of a monoinfection.

DISCUSSION

This study confirms the pathogenicity of P. acnes in an orthopedic population, as it is present in multiple samples in the same patient, and because it is present in cultures from cases with clinical recurrence. Our study showed that monoinfections differ from coinfections mainly by their higher risk of recurrence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV retrospective case series.

Pneumocystis pneumonia in patients with inflammatory or autoimmune diseases: Usefulness of lymphocyte subtyping

OBJECTIVES

No consensus currently exists on the indications for Pneumocystis jirovecii prophylaxis in patients with inflammatory or autoimmune diseases. The main objective was to identify biomarkers associated with P. jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out at Beijing Union Medical College Hospital (2003-2014). All patients with an inflammatory or autoimmune disease presenting with acute onset of fever and respiratory symptoms were included.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were included, of whom 42% had confirmed PCP, 18% had possible PCP, and 40% were negative for PCP. Immunosuppressive conditions consisted mostly of diffuse connective tissue disease (50%) and primary nephropathy (20%). Immunosuppressive therapies consisted of corticosteroids (95%) with concomitant non-steroidal drugs (80%). Independent predictors of PCP were a CD3+ cell count <625×10⁶/l, serum albumin <28g/l, and PaO₂/FiO₂ <210. Furthermore, 90% of patients with PCP had a CD3+ cell count <750×10⁶/l. Independent predictors of mortality were a CD8+ cell count <160×10⁶/l and a PaO₂/FiO₂ <160.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with inflammatory and autoimmune conditions receiving immunosuppressive therapy, low CD3+ and CD8+ cell counts were strongly associated with PCP and its mortality. These results suggest that lymphocyte subtyping is a very useful tool to optimize the selection of patients needing prophylaxis.

The role of defensive ecological interactions in the evolution of conotoxins

Venoms comprise of complex mixtures of peptides evolved for predation and defensive purposes. Remarkably, some carnivorous cone snails can inject two distinct venoms in response to predatory or defensive stimuli, providing a unique opportunity to study separately how different ecological pressures contribute to toxin diversification. Here, we report the extraordinary defensive strategy of the Rhizoconus subgenus of cone snails. The defensive venom from this worm-hunting subgenus is unusually simple, almost exclusively composed of αD-conotoxins instead of the ubiquitous αA-conotoxins found in the more complex defensive venom of mollusc- and fish-hunting cone snails. A similarly compartmentalized venom gland as those observed in the other dietary groups facilitates the deployment of this defensive venom. Transcriptomic analysis of a Conus vexillum venom gland revealed the αD-conotoxins as the major transcripts, with lower amounts of 15 known and four new conotoxin superfamilies also detected with likely roles in prey capture. Our phylogenetic and molecular evolution analysis of the αD-conotoxins from five subgenera of cone snails suggests they evolved episodically as part of a defensive strategy in the Rhizoconus subgenus. Thus, our results demonstrate an important role for defence in the evolution of conotoxins.

Extracorporeal Treatment in Phenytoin Poisoning: Systematic Review and Recommendations from the EXTRIP (Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning) Workgroup

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup conducted a systematic literature review using a standardized process to develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in patients with phenytoin poisoning. The authors reviewed all articles, extracted data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A 2-round modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. 51 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only case reports, case series, and pharmacokinetic studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence. Clinical data from 31 patients and toxicokinetic grading from 46 patients were abstracted. The workgroup concluded that phenytoin is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence = C) despite its high protein binding and made the following recommendations. ECTR would be reasonable in select cases of severe phenytoin poisoning (neutral recommendation, 3D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma is present or expected (graded 2D) and it would be reasonable if prolonged incapacitating ataxia is present or expected (graded 3D). If ECTR is used, it should be discontinued when clinical improvement is apparent (graded 1D). The preferred ECTR modality in phenytoin poisoning is intermittent hemodialysis (graded 1D), but hemoperfusion is an acceptable alternative if hemodialysis is not available (graded 1D). In summary, phenytoin appears to be amenable to extracorporeal removal. However, because of the low incidence of irreversible tissue injury or death related to phenytoin poisoning and the relatively limited effect of ECTR on phenytoin removal, the workgroup proposed the use of ECTR only in very select patients with severe phenytoin poisoning.

Extracorporeal treatment for valproic acid poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

The EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup presents its systematic review and clinical recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in valproic acid (VPA) poisoning.

METHODS

The lead authors reviewed all of the articles from a systematic literature search, extracted the data, summarized the key findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations.

RESULTS

The latest literature search conducted in November 2014 retrieved a total of 79 articles for final qualitative analysis, including one observational study, one uncontrolled cohort study with aggregate analysis, 70 case reports and case series, and 7 pharmacokinetic studies, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data were reported for 82 overdose patients while pharmaco/toxicokinetic grading was performed in 55 patients. The workgroup concluded that VPA is moderately dialyzable (level of evidence = B) and made the following recommendations: ECTR is recommended in severe VPA poisoning (1D); recommendations for ECTR include a VPA concentration > 1300 mg/L (9000 μmol/L)(1D), the presence of cerebral edema (1D) or shock (1D); suggestions for ECTR include a VPA concentration > 900 mg/L (6250 μmol/L)(2D), coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation (2D), acute hyperammonemia (2D), or pH ≤ 7.10 (2D). Cessation of ECTR is indicated when clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum VPA concentration is between 50 and 100 mg/L (350-700 μmol/L)(2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR in VPA poisoning (1D). If hemodialysis is not available, then intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapy (2D) is an acceptable alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

VPA is moderately dialyzable in the setting of overdose. ECTR is indicated for VPA poisoning if at least one of the above criteria is present. Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR modality in VPA poisoning.

Extracorporeal treatment for theophylline poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in poisoning. Here, the workgroup presents its systematic review and recommendations for theophylline.

METHODS

After a systematic review of the literature, a subgroup reviewed articles, extracted data, summarized findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a pre-determined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed. A second vote determined the final recommendations.

RESULTS

141 articles were included: 6 in vitro studies, 4 animal studies, 101 case reports/case series, 7 descriptive cohorts, 4 observational studies, and 19 pharmacokinetic studies, yielding a low-to-very-low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 143 patients were reviewed, including 10 deaths. The workgroup concluded that theophylline is dialyzable (level of evidence = A) and made the following recommendations: ECTR is recommended in severe theophylline poisoning (1C). Specific recommendations for ECTR include a theophylline concentration [theophylline] > 100 mg/L (555 μmol/L) in acute exposure (1C), the presence of seizures (1D), life-threatening dysrhythmias (1D) or shock (1D), a rising [theophylline] despite optimal therapy (1D), and clinical deterioration despite optimal care (1D). In chronic poisoning, ECTR is suggested if [theophylline] > 60 mg/L (333 μmol/L) (2D) or if the [theophylline] > 50 mg/L (278 μmol/L) and the patient is either less than 6 months of age or older than 60 years of age (2D). ECTR is also suggested if gastrointestinal decontamination cannot be administered (2D). ECTR should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent or the [theophylline] is < 15 mg/L (83 μmol/L) (1D). Following the cessation of ECTR, patients should be closely monitored. Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred method of ECTR (1C). If intermittent hemodialysis is unavailable, hemoperfusion (1C) or continuous renal replacement therapies may be considered (3D). Exchange transfusion is an adequate alternative to hemodialysis in neonates (2D). Multi-dose activated charcoal should be continued during ECTR (1D).

CONCLUSION

Theophylline poisoning is amenable to ECTRs. The workgroup recommended extracorporeal removal in the case of severe theophylline poisoning.

Extracorporeal treatment for carbamazepine poisoning: systematic review and recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

Context. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in poisoning. Objectives. To perform a systematic review and provide clinical recommendations for ECTR in carbamazepine poisoning. Methods. After a systematic literature search, the subgroup extracted the data and summarized the findings following a pre-determined format. The entire workgroup voted via a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements, using a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote determined the final recommendations. Results. Seventy-four articles met inclusion criteria. Articles included case reports, case series, descriptive cohorts, pharmacokinetic studies, and in-vitro studies; two poor-quality observational studies were identified, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Data on 173 patients, including 6 fatalities, were reviewed. The workgroup concluded that carbamazepine is moderately dialyzable and made the following recommendations: ECTR is suggested in severe carbamazepine poisoning (2D). ECTR is recommended if multiple seizures occur and are refractory to treatment (1D), or if life-threatening dysrhythmias occur (1D). ECTR is suggested if prolonged coma or respiratory depression requiring mechanical ventilation are present (2D) or if significant toxicity persists, particularly when carbamazepine concentrations rise or remain elevated, despite using multiple-dose activated charcoal (MDAC) and supportive measures (2D). ECTR should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent (1D) or the serum carbamazepine concentration is below 10 mg/L (42 the μ in μmol/L looks weird.) (2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred ECTR (1D), but both intermittent hemoperfusion (1D) or continuous renal replacement therapies (3D) are alternatives if hemodialysis is not available. MDAC therapy should be continued during ECTR (1D). Conclusion. Despite the low quality of the available clinical evidence and the high protein binding capacity of carbamazepine, the workgroup suggested extracorporeal removal in cases of severe carbamazepine poisoning.

Extracorporeal treatment for acetaminophen poisoning: recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

BACKGROUND

The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning and the results are presented here for acetaminophen (APAP).

METHODS

After a systematic review of the literature, a subgroup selected and reviewed the articles and summarized clinical and toxicokinetic data in order to propose structured voting statements following a pre-determined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Following discussion, a second vote determined the final recommendations.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles (1 randomized controlled trial, 1 observational study, 2 pharmacokinetic studies, and 20 case reports or case series) were identified, yielding an overall very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data on 135 patients and toxicokinetic data on 54 patients were analyzed. Twenty-three fatalities were reviewed. The workgroup agreed that N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is the mainstay of treatment, and that ECTR is not warranted in most cases of APAP poisoning. However, given that APAP is dialyzable, the workgroup agreed that ECTR is suggested in patients with excessively large overdoses who display features of mitochondrial dysfunction. This is reflected by early development of altered mental status and severe metabolic acidosis prior to the onset of hepatic failure. Specific recommendations for ECTR include an APAP concentration over 1000 mg/L if NAC is not administered (1D), signs of mitochondrial dysfunction and an APAP concentration over 700 mg/L (4630 mmol/L) if NAC is not administered (1D) and signs of mitochondrial dysfunction and an APAP concentration over 900 mg/L (5960 mmol/L) if NAC is administered (1D). Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) is the preferred ECTR modality in APAP poisoning (1D).

CONCLUSION

APAP is amenable to extracorporeal removal. Due to the efficacy of NAC, ECTR is reserved for rare situations when the efficacy of NAC has not been definitively demonstrated.

The impact of various platelet indices as prognostic markers of septic shock

Introduction

Platelet indices, including mean platelet volume (MPV), are readily available blood tests, although their prognostic value in patients with septic shock has not been fully explored. Current evidence has found contradictory results. This study aims to explore the behavior of platelet indices in septic shock and their clinical prognostic value.

Methods

Charts of septic shock patients from January to December 2012 in a tertiary medical center in Northern China were reviewed retrospectively. Platelet indices were recorded during the first five consecutive days after admission, as well as the penultimate and the last day of hospital stay. The data were compared between surviving and non-surviving patients.

Results

A total of 124 septic shock patients were enrolled. Thirty-six of the patients survived and 88 of them expired. MPV in the non-survivor group was higher than that of the survivor group, especially on the last day. PDW and PLCR showed increased trends, while PCT and PLT decreased in the non-survivor group. Among the PLT indices, MPV had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.81) with a precision rate of 75.6% at a cut-off of 10.5.Compared with other more usual septic shock prognostic markers, MPV is second only to lactate for the highest area under the curve.

Conclusion

A statistically significant difference was seen between survivors and non-survivors for platelet indices which make them easily available and useful prognostic markers for patients in septic shock.

Extracorporeal treatment for barbiturate poisoning: recommendations from the EXTRIP Workgroup

The EXTRIP (Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning) Workgroup conducted a systematic review of barbiturate poisoning using a standardized evidence-based process to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment (ECTR) in patients with barbiturate poisoning. The authors reviewed all articles, extracted data, summarized key findings, and proposed structured voting statements following a predetermined format. A 2-round modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. 617 articles met the search inclusion criteria. Data for 538 patients were abstracted and evaluated. Only case reports, case series, and nonrandomized observational studies were identified, yielding a low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Using established criteria, the workgroup deemed that long-acting barbiturates are dialyzable and short-acting barbiturates are moderately dialyzable. Four key recommendations were made. (1) The use of ECTR should be restricted to cases of severe long-acting barbiturate poisoning. (2) The indications for ECTR in this setting are the presence of prolonged coma, respiratory depression necessitating mechanical ventilation, shock, persistent toxicity, or increasing or persistently elevated serum barbiturate concentrations despite treatment with multiple-dose activated charcoal. (3) Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred mode of ECTR, and multiple-dose activated charcoal treatment should be continued during ECTR. (4) Cessation of ECTR is indicated when clinical improvement is apparent. This report provides detailed descriptions of the rationale for all recommendations. In summary, patients with long-acting barbiturate poisoning should be treated with ECTR provided at least one of the specific criteria in the first recommendation is present.

Aluminum transfer during dialysis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Dialysis-dependent patients are particularly susceptible to the toxic effects of aluminum (Al) because of their impaired ability to eliminate it. Al contamination of dialysis fluid remains a threat in this population. The mechanism for Al diffusion across dialysis membranes is not well established. Our objective is to verify, in AL-exposed patients, the postulate that the direction of Al transfer is predicted by the concentration gradient between free diffusible plasma Al and dialysate Al.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed. Only papers which included Al plasma concentration ([Al]p), Al dialysate concentration ([Al]d) and direction of Al transfer (positive = from dialysate to plasma, negative = from plasma to dialysate) were selected. We also included four patients from our own cohort. Assuming that [Al]p has an ultrafiltrable fraction between 17 and 23%, cases were considered in keeping with our hypothesis if any of the following scenarios was present: negative Al transfer when [Al]d < [Al]p*23% and positive Al transfer when [Al]d > [Al]p*17%.

RESULTS

The search yielded 409 articles, of which 12 were selected for review. When reviewing individual patients for analysis, 108 out of 115 (94%) patients followed our hypothesis. By further excluding cases in which Al transfer could not be determined, only three out of 111 patients were contrary to out hypothesis.

CONCLUSION

Comparing ultrafiltrable Al to dialysate Al permits to accurately predict the direction of Al transfer. The optimal [Al]d should be <20% of the maximally acceptable [Al]p. In order to follow K/DOQI guidelines ([Al]p < 20 μg/L), the [Al]d should therefore not exceed 4 μg/L. At the level presently supported by K/DOQI ([Al]d < 10 μg/L), [Al]p could realistically reach 50 μg/L and potentially cause toxicity.

Lymphopenia and treatment-related infectious complications in ANCA-associated vasculitis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) is treated with potent immunosuppressive regimens. This study sought to determine risk factors associated with infections during first-intention therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This retrospective study involved two separate cohorts of consecutive cases of AAV seen from 2004 to 2011 at two university hospitals. The following were assessed: vasculitis severity; therapy; and periods with no, moderate (lymphocyte count, 0.3-1.0× 10(9)/L), or severe (lymphocyte count ≤ 0.3×10(9)/L) lymphopenia and neutropenia (neutrophil count ≤ 1.5×10(9)/L).

RESULTS

One hundred patients had a mean age of 57±15 years and a Birmingham vasculitis activity score of 7.7±3.6. Therapy consisted of pulse methylprednisolone (59%), cyclophosphamide (85%), methotrexate (6%), and plasmapheresis (25%) in addition to oral corticosteroids. During follow-up, 53% of patients experienced infection and 28% were hospitalized for infection (severe infection). Only 18% experienced neutropenia, but 72% and 36% presented moderate and severe lymphopenia for a total duration of <0.1%, 73%, and 8% of the treatment follow-up, respectively. Lower initial estimated GFR, longer duration of corticosteroid use, and presence of lymphopenia were risk factors of infections. The rate was 2.23 events/person-year in the presence of severe lymphopenia compared with 0.41 and 0.19 during periods with moderate or no lymphopenia (P<0.001). Similarly, the rate of severe infections was 1.00 event/person-year with severe lymphopenia and 0.08 and 0.10 with moderate and no lymphopenia (P<0.001). This association remained independent of other risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Lymphopenia is frequent during the treatment of AAV, and its severity is associated with the risk of infectious complications.

Risk factors and consequences of hyperaluminemia in a peritoneal dialysis cohort

BACKGROUND

Widespread Al toxicity is unusual today. In 2005, Canadian peritoneal dialysis (PD) centers reported widespread hyperaluminemia in patients using dialysates from one specific manufacturer. Our objectives were to evaluate risk factors related to Al accumulation and to assess its clinical consequences in patients from 2 centers.

METHODS

A retrospective closed cohort study was conducted in patients treated with PD in May 2005. A multivariate linear regression model was constructed to identify variables associated with a higher serum Al level in the exposed group at the moment of solution change. Using appropriate statistical methods, anemia and bone metabolism parameters were compared between the exposed and unexposed groups. Time to first peritonitis was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 87 Al-exposed patients and 95 unexposed patients. In the exposed group, serum Al at the moment of solution change was influenced by the length of exposure to Al-containing dialysates and by PD creatinine clearance; serum Al was inversely correlated with renal creatinine clearance. No consequences of Al accumulation were observed. No difference was observed in the time to first peritonitis between patients who switched manufacturers and those who remained with the original manufacturer.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that hyperaluminemia is directly related to the length and extent of exposure to Al-containing dialysates; residual renal function is protective against Al accumulation. Because the problem was detected rapidly, no clinical consequences of hyperaluminemia were observed in the study cohort.