Search

Introduction: Antimicrobial resistance is a growing problem that necessitates the development of new therapeutic options. Cefiderocol and aztreonam (AT) are often the last active β-lactams for treating metallo-β-lactamases (MBL)-producing Gram-negative bacilli. In these difficult-to-treat bacterial strains, AT resistance is frequently attributed to the co-occurrence of other resistance mechanisms. In the case of β-lactamases they can often be inhibited by avibactam. In the present study, we evaluated the use of the double-disc synergy test (DDST) as a screening tool for the detection of synergy between AT-avibactam (ATA). We validated both the Gradient Diffusion Strips (GDSs) superposition method and the commercially available Liofilchem's ATA GDS., Materials and Methods: We tested AT susceptibility in combination with ceftazidime-avibactam for 65 strains, including 18 Serine-β-Lactamase (SBL)- and 24 MBL-producing Enterobacterales , 12 MBL-producing P. aeruginosa , and 11 S. maltophilia isolates. Interpretation was done with EUCAST breakpoints (version 13.0), AT breakpoints being used for ATA. The accuracy and validity of the GDSs superposition method and ATA GDS were evaluated using an AT GDS applied on Mueller Hinton Agar plates supplemented with avibactam (MH-AV). A DDST was performed to screen for synergy between antibiotic combinations., Results: Using MH-AV, all SBL- and MBL-positive Enterobacterales were susceptible or susceptible at increased exposure to the combination AT-avibactam. In contrast, only 2 out of the 12 (17%) P. aeruginosa strains and 9/11 (82%) of the S. maltophilia strains were susceptible- or susceptible at increased exposure for the combination of AT-avibactam. The DDST detected all synergies, demonstrating a 100% sensitivity and 100% negative predictive value for all bacterial strains., Conclusion: The DDST is a sensitive tool for screening for antibiotic synergy. Unlike S. maltophilia and SBL- and MBL-positive Enterobacterales , most MBL-positive P. aeruginosa strains remain resistant to AT-avibactam. ATA GDS should be preferred for MIC determination of the AT-avibactam combination, while the GDSs superposition method can be used as an alternative to the commercial test., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Verschelden, Noeparast, Stoefs, Van Honacker, Vandoorslaer, Vandervore, Olbrecht, Van Damme, Demuyser, Piérard and Wybo.)

Background and Objectives: The incidence of tuberculosis lymphadenopathy (TBLA) is increasing, and diagnostic procedures lack sensitivity and are often highly invasive. TBLA may be asymptomatic, and differential diagnosis with other adenopathies (ADPs) is difficult. We evaluated a blood-cell interferon-γ release assay (IGRA) with two different stage-specific mycobacterial antigens for the differential diagnosis of ADP suspected of mycobacterial origin., Methods: Twenty-one patients were included and divided into three groups: (1) cervical/axillar ADP ( n = 8), (2) mediastinal ADP ( n = 10), and (3) disseminated ADP ( n = 3). The mycobacterial antigens used for the IGRA were the heparin-binding haemagglutinin (HBHA) and the early-secreted antigenic target-6 (ESAT-6), a latency-associated antigen and a bacterial replication-related antigen, respectively. Diagnosis of TBLA based on microbiological results and/or response to anti-TB treatment was obtained for 15 patients., Results: An IGRA profile highly suggestive of active TB (higher IFN-γ response to ESAT-6 compared to HBHA) was found for 3/6 TBLA patients from group 1, and for all the TBLA patients from groups 2 and 3, whereas this profile was not noticed in patients with a final alternative diagnosis., Conclusion: These results highlight the potential value of this combined HBHA/ESAT-6 IGRA as a triage test for the differential diagnosis of ADP.

Chemotaxis is the directed movement of neutrophils towards an infected site. This physiological process can be reproduced using a modified Boyden chamber, such as the Transwell® support. Different techniques can be used to count neutrophils after migration to the lower chamber of the holder. The present study supports the use of an optimized Transwell® assay coupled with a flow cytometry-based method (Sysmex XN-9000) to detect chemotaxis abnormalities. A reference interval of neutrophil's chemotaxis was determined as part of this work. A first step involves the extraction of neutrophils from whole blood. The migration of neutrophils from the upper to the lower support chamber is subsequently directed by a chemoattractant gradient using N-formyl-l-Methionyl-l-Leucyl-l-Phenylalanine (fMLP). Neutrophils collected in the lower chamber are finally counted by flow cytometry. The original protocol was optimized through the comparison of different parameters. The use of Polymorphprep®, in the extraction of neutrophils, showed an improvement of the neutrophils yield of 1.65 times (57.5% of recovery) compared to the extraction using the Ficoll-Hypaque® gradient. A solution containing 5% of Bovin Serum Albumin (BSA) was used to suspend the extracted neutrophils, stabilize their viability and preserve their integrity. The mechanical agitation of the Transwell® permeable supports during migration did not show an increase in neutrophil yield. A migration time of 1 h 30 was identified as the best time for collecting the largest number of neutrophils after migration. Finally, we demonstrated that scraping the bottom of the well after migration improved neutrophil collection from the lower chamber by 1.9-fold compared to a non-scraping method. In conclusion, our results support the use of Polymorphprep® and a 5% BSA solution in the suspension, without agitation of the medium. An incubation time of 1 h 30 was identified as optimal for neutrophil migration through the chamber. Scraping the bottom after neutrophil migration improved neutrophil collection yield. Normal adult values were obtained with directed migration equal to 32.4% ±13.41% on 15 men and 18 women., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite the low rates of bacterial co-/superinfections in COVID-19 patients, antimicrobial drug use has been liberal since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the low specificity of markers of bacterial co-/superinfection in the COVID-19 setting, overdiagnosis and antimicrobial overprescription have become widespread. A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnoses and antimicrobial drug prescriptions for UTI diagnoses was performed in patients admitted to the COVID-19 ward of a university hospital between 17 March and 2 November 2020. A team of infectious disease specialists performed an appropriateness evaluation for every diagnosis of UTI and every antimicrobial drug prescription covering a UTI. A driver analysis was performed to identify factors increasing the odds of UTI (over)diagnosis. A total of 622 patients were included. UTI was present in 13% of included admissions, and in 12%, antimicrobials were initiated for a UTI diagnosis (0.71 daily defined doses (DDDs)/admission; 22% were scored as 'appropriate'). An evaluation of UTI diagnoses by ID specialists revealed that of the 79 UTI diagnoses, 61% were classified as probable overdiagnosis related to the COVID-19 hospitalization. The following factors were associated with UTI overdiagnosis: physicians who are unfamiliar working in an internal medicine ward, urinary incontinence, mechanical ventilation and female sex. Antimicrobial stewardship teams should focus on diagnostic stewardship of UTIs, as UTI overdiagnosis seems to be highly prevalent in admitted COVID-19 patients.

Background: Infections with SARS-CoV-2 continue to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 blockade have been proposed as therapeutic strategies in COVID-19, but study outcomes have been conflicting. We sought to study whether blockade of the IL-6 or IL-1 pathway shortened the time to clinical improvement in patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, and signs of systemic cytokine release syndrome., Methods: We did a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial, in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, hypoxia, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome across 16 hospitals in Belgium. Eligible patients had a proven diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms between 6 and 16 days, a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO 2 :FiO 2 ) of less than 350 mm Hg on room air or less than 280 mm Hg on supplemental oxygen, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome in their serum (either a single ferritin measurement of more than 2000 μg/L and immediately requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation, or a ferritin concentration of more than 1000 μg/L, which had been increasing over the previous 24 h, or lymphopenia below 800/mL with two of the following criteria: an increasing ferritin concentration of more than 700 μg/L, an increasing lactate dehydrogenase concentration of more than 300 international units per L, an increasing C-reactive protein concentration of more than 70 mg/L, or an increasing D-dimers concentration of more than 1000 ng/mL). The COV-AID trial has a 2 × 2 factorial design to evaluate IL-1 blockade versus no IL-1 blockade and IL-6 blockade versus no IL-6 blockade. Patients were randomly assigned by means of permuted block randomisation with varying block size and stratification by centre. In a first randomisation, patients were assigned to receive subcutaneous anakinra once daily (100 mg) for 28 days or until discharge, or to receive no IL-1 blockade (1:2). In a second randomisation step, patients were allocated to receive a single dose of siltuximab (11 mg/kg) intravenously, or a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) intravenously, or to receive no IL-6 blockade (1:1:1). The primary outcome was the time to clinical improvement, defined as time from randomisation to an increase of at least two points on a 6-category ordinal scale or to discharge from hospital alive. The primary and supportive efficacy endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the safety population. This study is registered online with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04330638) and EudraCT (2020-001500-41) and is complete., Findings: Between April 4, and Dec 6, 2020, 342 patients were randomly assigned to IL-1 blockade (n=112) or no IL-1 blockade (n=230) and simultaneously randomly assigned to IL-6 blockade (n=227; 114 for tocilizumab and 113 for siltuximab) or no IL-6 blockade (n=115). Most patients were male (265 [77%] of 342), median age was 65 years (IQR 54-73), and median Systematic Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at randomisation was 3 (2-4). All 342 patients were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. The estimated median time to clinical improvement was 12 days (95% CI 10-16) in the IL-1 blockade group versus 12 days (10-15) in the no IL-1 blockade group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·73-1·21]). For the IL-6 blockade group, the estimated median time to clinical improvement was 11 days (95% CI 10-16) versus 12 days (11-16) in the no IL-6 blockade group (HR 1·00 [0·78-1·29]). 55 patients died during the study, but no evidence for differences in mortality between treatment groups was found. The incidence of serious adverse events and serious infections was similar across study groups., Interpretation: Drugs targeting IL-1 or IL-6 did not shorten the time to clinical improvement in this sample of patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, low SOFA score, and low baseline mortality risk., Funding: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center and VIB Grand Challenges program., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JD, KFAVD, BM, CB, VB, LH, LN, and EDL have received personal PhD training fellowships from FWO Flanders. SJT and LJMS have received personal postdoctoral fellowships from FWO Flanders and from the Ghent University BOF Fund. HA has received a postdoctoral personal training grant from VLAIO Flanders. US has received a grant from the European Respiratory Society. MH has received a grant from ULB Fonds Erasme on COVID-19 research, and an EU-Horizon DisCoVeRY trial grant and EU-Solid-Act trial grant on COVID-19 therapeutics; she received support for attending meetings from Pfizer and acts as the leader of the Sciensano committee, which produces the national guidelines on COVID-19 therapeutics. ND has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and support for attending meetings from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) and has served on a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) for Roche. SA received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS)–Celgene and from European Hematology Association and consultancy fees from BMS–Celgene, J&J, Astellas, and Abbvie and honoraria from Pfizer and Astellas. JvdH received consultancy fess from Novartis and SOBI and honoraria from MSD, Sanofi, and J&J, and support for attending meetings from ViiV; he serves on DSMB boards for Novartis and SOBI. HS has received consultancy fees and support for attending meetings from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim. CL has received consultancy fees from the sponsor Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center (KCE) to serve on the clinical trial board. MB owns stock of the International Drug Development Institute and Cluepoints. DS has received honoraria and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Roche, and Merck. FB has received support from the Ghent University Hospital Clinical Research Fund. FHa has received a VIB Grand Challenge research grant, a Ghent University Special Research Fund (BOF) research grant, and a Ghent University Hospital Innovation Research Grant as well as lecture honoraria from CSL Behring. LV has received grants from University Hospital Ghent Innovation Fund, Research Foundation—Flanders–Strategic Basic Research (FWO-SBO) and FWO to do COVID-19 related research; he received consultancy fees and honoraria from Gilead and ViiV Healthcare. EvB received a grant from Ghent University Special Research Fund (BOF) and a research grant from ExeVir to do COVID-19 related research. She received honoraria from Gilead and is a member of the Sciensano committee, which produces the national guidelines on COVID-19 therapeutics. SR has received honoraria and meeting attendance support from BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Bayer, J&J, Astellas, Roche, and Ipsen; she serves on DSMBs organised by Pfizer, J&J, BMS, and MSD. IP has received research grants from FWO and honoraria from UCB Pharma and Galapagos. She serves on advisory boards from Abbvie, Amgen, Argenx, AstraZeneca, BMS, Galapagos, and Novartis. FHu is an employee of KCE The Belgian Healthcare Knowledge center, a public federal agency. BNL received an European Research Council Advanced Grant (ERC-2017-ADG-789384) and several FWO grants, as well as a University of Ghent Methusalem Grant. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Zinc deficiency is associated with impaired antiviral response, cytokine releasing syndrome (CRS), and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Notably, similar complications are being observed during severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. We conducted a prospective, single-center, observational study in a tertiary university hospital (CUB-Hôpital Erasme, Brussels) to address the zinc status, the association between the plasma zinc concentration, development of CRS, and the clinical outcomes in PCR-confirmed and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. One hundred and thirty-nine eligible patients were included between May 2020 and November 2020 (median age of 65 years [IQR = 54, 77]). Our cohort's median plasma zinc concentration was 57 µg/dL (interquartile range [IQR] = 45, 67) compared to 74 µg/dL (IQR = 64, 84) in the retrospective non-COVID-19 control group (N = 1513; p < 0.001). Markedly, the absolute majority of COVID-19 patients (96%) were zinc deficient (<80 µg/dL). The median zinc concentration was lower in patients with CRS compared to those without CRS (-5 µg/dL; 95% CI = -10.5, 0.051; p = 0.048). Among the tested outcomes, zinc concentration is significantly correlated with only the length of hospital stay (rho = -0.19; p = 0.022), but not with mortality or morbidity. As such, our findings do not support the role of zinc as a robust prognostic marker among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who in our cohort presented a high prevalence of zinc deficiency. It might be more beneficial to explore the role of zinc as a biomarker for assessing the risk of developing a tissue-damaging CRS and predicting outcomes in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at the early stage of the disease., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Approximately half of BRAF-mutated Non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) harbor a non-V600 BRAF mutation, accounting for ∼40,000 annual deaths worldwide. Recent studies have revealed the benefits of combined targeted therapy with a RAF-inhibitor (Dabrafenib) and a MEK-inhibitor (Trametinib) in treating V600 BRAF mutant cancers, including NSCLC. In contrast, sensitivity of non-V600 BRAF mutations to these inhibitors is not documented. Non-V600 mutations can either increase or impair BRAF kinase activity. However, impaired BRAF kinases can still activate the ERK pathway in a CRAF-dependent manner. Herein, beyond describing a cohort of BRAF mutant NSCLC patients and functionally analyzing 13 tumor-derived BRAF mutations, we demonstrate that both types of non-V600 BRAF mutations can be sensitive to clinically relevant doses of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in HEK293T cells, in lung epithelial cellular model (BEAS-2B) and in human cancer cell lines harboring non-V600 BRAF mutations. ERK activity induced by both types of these mutations is further reduced by combinatorial drug treatment. Moreover, the combination leads to more prolonged ERK inhibition and has anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effects in cells harboring both types of non-V600 BRAF mutations. This study provides a basis for the clinical exploration of non-V600 BRAF mutant lung cancers upon treatment with Trametinib and Dabrafenib., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Authors claim no conflicts of interest