Search

Introduction: Aspergillusfumigatus can cause a systemic infection called invasive aspergillosis causing pulmonary and extra-pulmonary damage. Aspergillus endocarditis (AE) is a relatively rare disease but can be life-threatening., Case Reports: We report here on five cases of endocarditis due to invasive aspergillosis: a 58-year-old man receiving immunosuppressive medication following a kidney graft, a 58-year-old man undergoing chemotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, a 55-year-old man receiving corticosteroids for IgA vasculitis, a 52-year-old HIV-infected woman under no specific treatment and a 17-year-old boy under immunosuppressive therapy for auto-immune chronic neutropenia., Discussion: Aspergillus accounts for 25-30% of fungal endocarditis and 0.25% to 8.5% of all cases of infectious endocarditis. Aspergillus endocarditis results from invasion of the lung arterioles by hyphae and blood dissemination. It is associated with a very high mortality rate (42-68%). Diagnosing Aspergillus endocarditis is mainly problematic because blood cultures are almost always negative, and fever may be absent. Immunosuppression, haematological malignancies, recent cardiothoracic surgery, negative blood cultures with endocarditis and/or systemic or pulmonary emboli are predictors of AE. In the setting of endocarditis, some clinical characteristics may raise early suspicions of aspergillosis rather than a non-fungal agent: no fever, vegetations affecting the mitral valve, non-valve or aortotomy sites, aortic abscess or pseudo-aneurysm. The identification of invasive aspergillosis is based on a chest CT scan, microscopy/culture or other serological and molecular tests. The treatment of Aspergillus endocarditis requires triazole antifungal drugs, and frequently additional surgical debridement., Conclusion: Aspergillus endocarditis is rare but is associated with a very high mortality rate. Knowledge of its predictive factors and key clinical features can help to differentiate aspergillosis from non-fungal endocarditis and may enable improved survival rates., (Copyright © 2021 Société Nationale Française de Médecine Interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

The "author-pay" model of open access publication, which appeared in 2002, allocates to the author or his institution the costs of processing articles due to the journal after acceptance, for an amount of a few hundred to several thousand euros. New publishers emerged towards the end of the 2000s, which used this model but with purely commercial objectives, offering naive authors and/or wishing to quickly expand their curriculum vitae by publications in "predatory journals". They are characterized by aggressive e-mail solicitations, lack of ethics, lack of details about the publisher and the editorial board, poor peer review, unspecified and low fees for processing articles, a lack of indexing and the promise of rapid publication., (Copyright © 2021 Société Nationale Française de Médecine Interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

The deleterious consequences of "predatory" journals are numerous, whether the researcher submitted his work to them naively or knowingly: work little or not read by the international community in the absence of indexing and disappearance of any digital trace in the absence of archiving. The reputation of researchers but also of universities and research organizations and the credit of science for citizens can be sustainably damaged. These open access journals, with the author who pays as model, represent as many resources unavailable for legitimate journals. A joint mobilization of all the actors involved is necessary: researchers, universities and faculties of medicine, sections of the national university council, publishers of legitimate journals, research organizations, learned societies, ethics committees, funders, media and political decision-makers. Publishing in a predatory journal is now a scientific misconduct., (Copyright © 2021 Société Nationale Française de Médecine Interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) and detrimental research practices (selective reporting of data, inappropriate citation practice, ghostwriting) are admitted respectively by 2 % and 33 % of researchers. The consequences of scientific misconduct and detrimental research practices are disastrous, both for the doctors, who are the most affected researchers in view of the number of retracted articles, and for the patients, victims of false information that may have health consequences. In order to fight against the causes (promotion of doctors and allocation of resources to clinical wards and laboratories on purely quantitative research criteria, lack of training in scientific integrity in medical studies, heterogenous quality of reviewing, legal impunity), there are legislative, academic, technological and editorial solutions, but radical and urgent cultural change is needed first., (Copyright © 2020 Société Nationale Française de Médecine Interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)