Search

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) use between October and December 2020 was characterized using the National Inpatient Sample database. CCP was administered in 18.0% of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and was strongly associated with older age and increased disease severity. There were disparities in the receipt of CCP by race and ethnicity, geography, and insurance.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 in immunocompromised (IC) patients. IC patients have a higher risk of persistent infection, severe disease, and death from COVID-19. Despite the continued clinical use of CCP to treat IC patients, the optimal dose, frequency/schedule, and duration of CCP treatment has yet to be determined, and related best practices guidelines are lacking. A group of individuals with expertise spanning infectious diseases, virology and transfusion medicine was assembled to render an expert opinion statement pertaining to the use of CCP for IC patients. For optimal effect, CCP should be recently and locally collected to match circulating variant. CCP should be considered for the treatment of IC patients with acute and protracted COVID-19; dosage depends on clinical setting (acute vs protracted COVID-19). CCP containing high-titer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies, retains activity against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have otherwise rendered monoclonal antibodies ineffective.

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.

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

Background Convalescent plasma therapy is a leading treatment for conferring temporary immunity to COVID-19–susceptible individuals or for use as post-exposure prophylaxis. However, not all recovered patients develop adequate antibody titers for donation and the relationship between avidity and neutralizing titers is currently not well understood. Methods SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid IgG titers and avidity were measured in a longitudinal cohort of COVID-19 hospitalized patients (n = 16 individuals) and a cross-sectional sample of convalescent plasma donors (n = 130). Epidemiologic correlates of avidity were examined in donors by linear regression. The association of avidity and a high neutralizing titer (NT) were also assessed in donors using modified Poisson regression. Results Antibody avidity increased over duration of infection and remained elevated. In convalescent plasma donors, higher levels of anti-spike avidity were associated with older age, male sex, and hospitalization. Higher NTs had a stronger positive correlation with anti-spike IgG avidity (Spearman ρ = 0.386; P Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 antibody avidity correlated with duration of infection and higher neutralizing titers, suggesting a potential alternative screening parameter for identifying optimal convalescent plasma donors.

Background Liver tumours observed in rats exposed to micafungin led to a black box warning upon approval in Europe in 2008. Micafungin’s risk for liver carcinogenicity in humans has not been investigated. We sought to describe the risk of fatal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among persons who received micafungin and other parenteral antifungals (PAFs) with up to 12 years of follow-up. Methods We assembled a US multicentre cohort of hospitalized patients who received micafungin or other PAFs between 2005 and 2012. We used propensity score (PS) matching on patient characteristics from electronic medical records to compare rates of HCC mortality identified through the National Death Index though to the end of December 2016. We computed HRs and 95% CIs. Results A total of 40110 patients who received a PAF were identified; 6903 micafungin recipients (87% of those identified) were successfully matched to 16317 comparator PAF users. Ten incident HCC deaths, one in the micafungin-exposed group and nine among comparator PAF users, occurred in 71285 person-years of follow-up. The HCC mortality rate was 0.05 per 1000 person-years in micafungin patients and 0.17 per 1000 person-years in comparator PAF patients. The PS-matched HR for micafungin versus comparator PAF was 0.29 (95% CI 0.04–2.24). Conclusions Both micafungin and comparator PAFs were associated with HCC mortality rates of

Background The efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is primarily ascribed as a source of neutralizing anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. However, the composition of other immune components in CCP and their potential roles remain largely unexplored. This study aimed to describe the composition and concentrations of plasma cytokines and chemokines in eligible CCP donors. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among 20 prepandemic healthy blood donors without SARS-CoV-2 infection and 140 eligible CCP donors with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Electrochemiluminescence detection-based multiplexed sandwich immunoassays were used to quantify plasma cytokine and chemokine concentrations (n = 35 analytes). A SARS-CoV-2 microneutralization assay was also performed. Differences in the percentage of detection and distribution of cytokine and chemokine concentrations were examined by categorical groups using Fisher’s exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, respectively. Results Among CCP donors (n = 140), the median time since molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 was 44 days (interquartile range = 38–50) and 9% (n = 12) were hospitalized due to COVID-19. Compared with healthy blood donor controls, CCP donors had significantly higher plasma levels of interferon (IFN)-γ, interleukin (IL)-10, IL-15, IL-21, and macrophage-inflammatory protein-1, but lower levels of IL-1RA, IL-8, IL-16, and vascular endothelial growth factor-A (P Conclusions Heterogeneity in cytokine and chemokine composition of CCP suggests there is a different inflammatory state among the CCP donors compared with SARS-CoV-2 naive, healthy blood donors.

BackgroundThere are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature. The objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe Infectious Diseases Society of America (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 gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.ResultsThe IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations.ConclusionsThe 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.

Background Although echinocandins are generally well tolerated, there is little information on the frequency with which renal and hepatic adverse effects occur during use of micafungin or other parenteral antifungal (PAF) agents in clinical practice. Methods MYCOS is a multicentre cohort study of adult and paediatric patients who received micafungin or other PAFs between 2005 and 2012 at seven tertiary care hospitals from six centres in the USA. PAF cohort controls were selected through propensity score (PS) matching to micafungin recipients using clinical characteristics, other treatments, procedures and hospital service where PAF treatment was initiated. Analysis was restricted to patients without chronic liver and kidney conditions at the time of cohort entry. Treatment-emergent hepatic and renal injury was documented by changes in liver enzymes or estimated glomerular filtration rate through 30 days following completion of PAF treatment. Comparisons were quantified using the HR from a proportional hazards analysis. Results There were 2970 micafungin recipients PS matched to 6726 recipients of comparator PAFs. Balance was achieved in all baseline covariates between treatment groups. There were similar rates of hepatic injury (micafungin, 13 events per 100 patients and other PAF, 12 per 100; HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.86-1.14) and lower rates of renal injury (micafungin, 63 events per 100 patients and other PAF, 65 per 100; HR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99) for micafungin recipients versus PAF comparators. Conclusion For a wide spectrum of underlying conditions, we observed no increase in liver injury by micafungin and possibly a reduced risk of renal dysfunction in comparison with other PAF medications.

We investigated serum β-d-glucan (BDG) testing among non-neutropenic adult inpatients at an academic center where the test is unrestricted. BDG orders were inappropriate in 49% of cases due to absence of predisposing host factors or clinical picture consistent with fungal infection. Providers’ knowledge about BDG was insufficient.

Background Phaeohyphomycosis is infection caused by dematiaceous, or darkly pigmented, fungi. The spectrum of disease is broad, and optimal therapy remains poorly defined. The Mycoses Study Group established an international case registry of patients with proven/probable phaeohyphomycosis with the goal of improving the recognition and management of these infections. Methods Patients from 18 sites in 3 countries were enrolled from 2009–2015. Cases were categorized as local superficial, local deep (pulmonary, sinus, osteoarticular infections), and disseminated infections. End points were clinical response (partial and complete) and all-cause mortality at 30 days and end of follow-up. Results Of 99 patients, 32 had local superficial infection, 41 had local deep infection, and 26 had disseminated infection. The most common risk factors were corticosteroids, solid organ transplantation, malignancy, and diabetes. Cultures were positive in 98% of cases. All-cause mortality was 16% at 30 days and 33% at end of follow-up, and 18 of 26 (69%) with dissemination died. Itraconazole was most commonly used for local infections, and voriconazole was used for more severe infections, often in combination with terbinafine or amphotericin B. Conclusions Phaeohyphomycosis is an increasingly recognized infection. Culture remains the most frequently used diagnostic method. Triazoles are currently the drugs of choice, often combined with other agents. Further studies are needed to develop optimal therapies for disseminated infections.

Background Invasive candidiasis is the third most common bloodstream infection in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with morbidity and mortality. Prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are attractive strategies for this setting. Methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of caspofungin as antifungal prophylaxis in 222 adults who were in the ICU for at least 3 days, were ventilated, received antibiotics, had a central line, and had 1 additional risk factor (parenteral nutrition, dialysis, surgery, pancreatitis, systemic steroids, or other immunosuppressants). Subjects' (1,3)-β-d-glucan levels were monitored twice weekly. The primary endpoint was the incidence of proven or probable invasive candidiasis by EORTC/MSG criteria in patients who did not have disease at baseline. Patients who had invasive candidiasis were allowed to break the blind and receive preemptive therapy with caspofungin. The preemptive approach analysis included patients all patients who received study drug, including those positive at baseline. Results The incidence of proven/probable invasive candidiasis in the placebo and caspofungin arms was 16.7% (14/84) and 9.8% (10/102), respectively, for prophylaxis (P = .14), and 30.4% (31/102) and 18.8% (22/117), respectively, for the preemptive approach (P = .04); however, this analysis included patients with baseline disease. There were no significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mortality, antifungal use, or length of stay. There were no safety differences. Conclusions Caspofungin was safe and tended to reduce the incidence of invasive candidiasis when used for prophylaxis, but the difference was not statistically significant. A preemptive therapy approach deserves further study. Clinical trials registration NCT00520234.

During the past half-century, medical advances have led to an increase in the world's population of immunosuppressed individuals. This includes those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, those with acquired immunosuppressive diseases such as the 34 million worldwide with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS [1], and individuals living longer with any of the over 150 known primary immunodeficiencies [2]. The most severely immunocompromised are those who have been diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy, solid organ tumor, or who receive other immunosuppressive therapies such as chemotherapy and/or solid organ or stem cell transplants. Over 100 000 individuals annually receive solid organ transplants (SOT) worldwide [3] and more than 50 000 with hematologic malignancies and other diseases are treated with hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) annually [4], leaving most of these individuals immunosuppressed for long periods. Even larger numbers of individuals are receiving immunosuppressive chemotherapies making immunocompromised individuals a larger part of the population than during any of the influenza pandemics of the twentieth century. Epidemiologic studies have shown that severe immunosuppression is a major comorbidity that places individuals at the highest risk of severe morbidity and mortality due to influenza infection. Patients with AIDS have increased duration of disease due to influenza and higher incidence of pneumonia leading to increased mortality [5–7]. A study of hospitalized patients with leukemia and influenza reported 80% with pneumonia and 33% mortality [8]. More recently during the 2009 pandemic, studies reported similarly high levels of lower respiratory tract disease and need for hospitalization in those with hematologic malignancies and solid tumors undergoing chemotherapy [9]. Similarly, in a large retrospective study of HSCT recipients, 1.3% of all patients developed influenza infection and 29% developed pneumonia [10]. A more recent study of HSCT patients demonstrated that up to 75% developed pneumonia after influenza infection with mortality as high as 43% [11]. In SOT, nosocomial outbreaks [12] and severe complications of influenza such as myocarditis [13] and severe pneumonitis [14] have been reported, even in those previously vaccinated. Multicenter studies of A(H1N1)pdm09 infection in SOT recipients have reported that 30%–40% of individuals infected developed pneumonia, 16%–17.5% required intensive care, with mortality as high as 7% [15]. Influenza following SOT leads to higher morbidity and mortality rates [16], with increased rates of influenza pneumonia following lung transplantation, and a >20% mortality rate observed in SOT recipients infected with influenza [17, 18]. In addition to increased morbidity and mortality following infection, severely immunocompromised patients have been reported to show prolonged influenza shedding [19–25]. This has been associated with intrahost viral evolution, including antigenic drift within a single immunosuppressed host [24], the development of antiviral resistance after therapy [19, 21–23, 25, 26], and simultaneous coinfection with 2 influenza subtypes [27]. Rigorous vaccination programs and improved pharmacotherapy have decreased the impact of influenza on the general population; however, influenza still remains a serious threat to severely immunocompromised individuals. The 2009 pandemic was a reminder that it is still unclear how well current vaccination strategies and current pharmacotherapy can perform in preventing and mitigating illness in immunocompromised individuals. The primary goal of this study was to compare the natural history of influenza infection in those who were severely immunocompromised to individuals who were not immunocompromised. Careful examination of symptoms and signs of infection, virological measurements, immunological studies, and clinical parameters were performed to investigate the natural pathogenesis of influenza in this group of severely immunocompromised hosts.

Background The empiric initial antibiotic regimen (IAR) for treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) relies on a knowledge of epidemiology and susceptibility patterns of bacterial bloodstream infections (BSI), especially in high-risk patient populations, i.e., those receiving chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies (HM) or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT). As the last US national survey of BSI epidemiology in cancer patients was published in 2003, we sought to update these data focusing exclusively on high-risk patients with attention to IARs used and their concordance with susceptibilities of isolated bloodstream pathogens. Methods A prospective ongoing survey among 14 high-volume US cancer centers submitting clinical and microbiologic data from consecutive HM patients with BSI during first FN after cytotoxic chemotherapy or HCT. Concordance between antibiotic and BSI was determined by investigator (AZ, AF) interpretation of susceptibility reports provided by each center compared with IAR used, for single organism bacteremias only. Results Among 294 FN bacteremic episodes (93 HCT), there were 336 bacterial pathogens (48.5% Gram negative [GN] 46.5% Gram positive [GP] and 6% anaerobes), with 88% monomicrobial episodes. E. coli and viridans group Streptococci (VGS) were the most commonly isolated GN and GP, respectively, each accounting for nearly 25% of total organisms identified. IARs included cefepime 61%, piperacillin–tazobactam 24%, and meropenem 8%. Isolates were nonsusceptible to the IAR in 38/227 (17%) of FN episodes. Antibiotic mismatch was more likely to occur with a non-VGS GP (37%) vs. GN (13%) or VGS (2%) P < 0.001. Conclusion This is the first US national survey of high-risk BSI in FN. Although mismatch between BSI and IAR occurs in 17% of FN bacteremia episodes, this is driven primarily by non-VGS GP isolates such as CoNS and MRSA. Currently used IARs, comprised primarily of cefepime and piperacillin–tazobactam, generally provide reliable coverage for GN isolates across the United States (87%) but careful tracking of this rate is essential to identify further erosion of coverage in the current era of antimicrobial resistance. Disclosures A. Zimmer, Merck: Investigator, Research grant. A. G. Freifeld, Merck: Investigator, Research grant. S. Pergam, Merck: Consultant, Consulting fee; Chimerix: Consultant, Consulting fee. K. V. Rolston, Merck: Investigator, Research grant; JMI Laboratories: Investigator, Research grant; Shionogi (Japan): Investigator, Research grant. S. Shoham, Merck: Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Grant recipient; Astellas: Investigator, Grant recipient; Shionogi (Japan): Investigator, Grant recipient; Gilead: Investigator, Grant recipient; Shire: Investigator, Grant recipient. T. J. Walsh, Merck: Grant Investigator, Research grant; Atellas: Consultant, Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Research grant; Gilead: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee; Allergan: Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Research grant; Scynexis: Grant Investigator, Research grant; Amplyx: Grant Investigator, Research grant; Shionogi: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. J. A. Young, GSK: Investigator, The University of Minnesota is reimbursed for contract costs associated with conducting clinical trials of vaccine. I receive no personal financial benefit.. J. Meza, Merck: Investigator, Research grant. Y. Zhang, Merck: Investigator, Research grant.

Received 6 September 2006; accepted 6 September 2006;electronically published 13 September 2006.Author affiliations are listed at the end of the text.Reprints or correspondence: Dr. Elias J. Anaissie, MyelomaInstitute for Research and Therapy, University of Arkansasfor Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham, Slot 816, LittleRock, AR 72205 (anaissieeliasj@uams.edu).

Background The β-d-glucan (BDG) assay aids in diagnosis of some invasive fungal infections (IFI) in at-risk patients. Due to an increase in the number of BDG tests ordered at Johns Hopkins Hospital in patients not at high risk for IFI, we evaluated the appropriateness of testing and conducted a survey to understand providers’ knowledge about the test. Methods From December 2015 to July 2016, we identified inpatients >17 years with at least one BDG test. We did not evaluate patients with solid organ/stem cell transplant or hematologic malignancies as they generally have indications for BDG testing. Using a standard data collection form, one infectious disease (ID) physician reviewed all test for appropriateness; 20% of cases were reviewed by an additional ID physician. Students, housestaff and allied staff from departments of medicine and surgery were surveyed regarding their knowledge of BDG test characteristics including indications and causes of false-positive results. Results 355 patients with at least one BDG were included. 33% (n = 116) had a risk factor for IFI (e.g., AIDS, immunosuppressing medication, malignancy, total parenteral nutrition, and prolonged ICU stay) although only 13% (n = 48) of these had proved or possible IFI. 49% (n = 173) had no indication for testing. Of these, 4% (n = 8) had inappropriate antifungals started based on BDG results. Being at an intensive care unit or having cirrhosis was associated with inappropriate BDG use (P = 0.03). Most of the 47 clinicians surveyed recognized the utility of BDG in the diagnosis of candidiasis (63%) and Aspergillosis (78%) but only 49% recognized its utility in diagnosis of Pneumocystis. Fifty-two percent identified its lack of utility for diagnosis of Cryptococcus infection but only 44% recognized lack of utility for diagnosing Zygomycetes. The majority of those surveyed were unable to identify causes of false-positive results of the assay. Conclusion In patients without solid organ/stem cell transplant or hematologic malignancies, clinicians ordered the BDG assay in the absence of clinical risk or evidence of IFI in almost 50% of patients. Survey results suggest an incomplete understanding of organisms associated with positive BDG tests. Clinicians must be educated about the correct patient population in which a new test should be used. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Meningitis due to Cryptococcus neoformans may be associated with elevated intracranial pressure (ICP), but management of this complication is often overlooked. We retrospectively analyzed 39 consecutive patients with cases of culture-proven, community-acquired meningitis and ascertained adherence to Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) practice guidelines for management of cryptococcal meningitis. Of these 39 patients, 26 (67%) had infection due to C. neoformans. Cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure had been measured for 13 (50%) of these 26 patients, and major deviations from the guidelines with respect to ICP management were observed in the care of 14 (54%). Seven (50%) of these 14 patients developed neuropathies during therapy, compared with 1 of the 5 patients whose care had minor or no deviations from the guidelines (P = .024). Major departures from the IDSA guidelines for management of ICP due to C. neoformans meningitis are common and can be associated with neurological injury during therapy.

• The primary endpoint was Day 42 all-cause mortality in the ITT population. • Success rate (complete or partial) for DRC-assessed overall response at end of therapy (EOT), was a key secondary effi cacy endpoint. − DRC evaluated the overall response based on clinical, mycological, and radiological assessments. • Day 84 all-cause mortality was also assessed. Safety assessments • Adverse events (AEs) were assessed throughout the study for all patients who received at least 1 dose of the study drug. • Other safety assessments included measurement of vital-signs, 12-lead electrocardiograms, clinical laboratory testing (hematology, chemistry, and urinalysis) and physical examinations (including eye examination).