Search

Background Patients hospitalised for COVID-19 may present with or acquire bacterial or fungal infections that can affect the course of the disease. The aim of this study was to describe the microbiological characteristics of laboratory-confirmed infections in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. Methods We reviewed the hospital charts of a sample of patients deceased with COVID-19 from the Italian National COVID-19 Surveillance, who had laboratory-confirmed bacterial or fungal bloodstream infections (BSI) or lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), evaluating the pathogens responsible for the infections and their antimicrobial susceptibility. Results Among 157 patients with infections hospitalised from February 2020 to April 2021, 28 (17.8%) had co-infections (≤ 48 h from admission) and 138 (87.9%) had secondary infections (> 48 h). Most infections were bacterial; LRTI were more frequent than BSI. The most common co-infection was pneumococcal LRTI. In secondary infections, Enterococci were the most frequently recovered pathogens in BSI (21.7% of patients), followed by Enterobacterales, mainly K. pneumoniae, while LRTI were mostly associated with Gram-negative bacteria, firstly Enterobacterales (27.4% of patients, K. pneumoniae 15.3%), followed by A. baumannii (19.1%). Fungal infections, both BSI and LRTI, were mostly due to C. albicans. Antibiotic resistance rates were extremely high in Gram-negative bacteria, with almost all A. baumannii isolates resistant to carbapenems (95.5%), and K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa showing carbapenem resistance rates of 59.5% and 34.6%, respectively. Conclusions In hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19, secondary infections are considerably more common than co-infections, and are mostly due to Gram-negative bacterial pathogens showing a very high rate of antibiotic resistance.

Women who were previously treated for breast cancer (BC) are an important particular subgroup of women at intermediate BC risk. Their breast follow-up should be planned taking in consideration a 1.0-1.5 % annual rate of loco-regional recurrences and new ipsilateral or contralateral BCs during 15-20 years, and be based on a regional/district invitation system. This activity should be carried out by a Department of Radiology integrating screening and diagnostics in the context of a Breast Unit. We recommend the adoption of protocols dedicated to women previously treated for BC, with a clear definition of responsibilities, methods for invitation, site(s) of visits, methods for clinical and radiological evaluation, follow-up duration, role and function of family doctors and specialists. These women will be invited to get a mammogram in dedicated sessions starting from the year after the end of treatment. The planned follow-up duration will be at least 10 years and will be defined on the basis of patient's age and preferences, taking into consideration organizational matters. Special agreements can be defined in the case of women who have their follow-up planned at other qualified centers. Dedicated screening sessions should include: evaluation of familial/personal history (if previously not done) for identifying high-risk conditions which could indicate a different screening strategy; immediate evaluation of mammograms by one or, when possible, two breast radiologists with possible addition of supplemental mammographic views, digital breast tomosynthesis, clinical breast examination, breast ultrasound; and prompt planning of possible further workup. Results of these screening sessions should be set apart from those of general female population screening and presented in dedicated reports. The following research issues are suggested: further risk stratification and effectiveness of follow-up protocols differentiated also for BC pathologic subtype and molecular classification, and evaluation of different models of survivorship care, also in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Epidemics and pandemics are natural events recurring over the time: their impact can be appropriately minimised but most countries only rely on emergency response. The European Decision 1082/2013 on serious cross-border threats to health is innovative in recognising risk communication as an essential tool in coping with public health emergencies of international concern (PHEIC). The Decision serves as proper context for the EU-funded ASSET (Action plan in Science in Society in Epidemics and Total pandemics) research project that aims to create the blueprint for a better response to PHEIC, through improved forms of dialogue and better cooperation at different levels on Science-in-Society (SiS) issues (governance, engagement, ethics, gender, science education, open access). A Mobilization and Mutual Learning (MML) approach was developed through the ASSET Strategic and Action Plans toward different targets and relevant stakeholders. An integrated participatory approach needs to be recognized into the national plans for preparedness and response.

This position paper, issued by ICBR/SIRM and GISMa, summarizes the evidence on DBT and provides recommendations for its use. In the screening setting, DBT in adjunct to digital mammography (DM) increased detection rate by 0.5-2.7‰ and decreased false positives by 0.8-3.6% compared to DM alone in observational and double-testing experimental studies. The reduction in recall rate could be less prominent in those screening programs which already have low recall rates with DM. The increase in radiation exposure associated with DM/DBT protocols has been solved by the introduction of synthetic mammograms (sDM) reconstructed from DBT datasets. Thus, whenever possible, sDM/DBT should be preferred to DM/DBT. However, before introducing DBT as a routine screening tool for average-risk women, we should wait for the results of randomized controlled trials and for a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the interval cancer rate, hopefully associated with a reduction in the advanced cancer rate. Otherwise, a potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment cannot be excluded. Studies exploring this issue are ongoing. Screening of women at intermediate risk should follow the same recommendations, with particular protocols for women with previous BC history. In high-risk women, if mammography is performed as an adjunct to MRI or in the case of MRI contraindications, sDM/DBT protocols are suggested. Evidence exists in favor of DBT usage in women with clinical symptoms/signs and asymptomatic women with screen-detected findings recalled for work-up. The possibility to perform needle biopsy or localization under DBT guidance should be offered when DBT-only findings need characterization or surgery.