Search

The EORTC/MSGERC recently revised and updated the consensus definitions of invasive fungal disease (IFD). These definitions primarily focus on patients with cancer and stem cell or solid-organ transplant patients. They may therefore not be suitable for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. More in detail, while the definition of proven IFD applies to a broad range of hosts, the categories of probable and possible IFD were primarily designed for classical immunocompromised hosts and may therefore not be ideal for other populations. Moreover, the scope of the possible category of IFD has been diminished in the recently revised definitions for classically immunocompromised hosts. Diagnosis of IFD in the ICU presents many challenges, which are different for invasive candidiasis and for invasive aspergillosis. The aim of this article is to review progresses made in recent years and difficulties remaining in the development of definitions applicable in the ICU setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis might be able to overcome major shortcomings of serological testing, such as its low sensitivity in early stages of infection. Therefore, we aimed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of three cellular tests., Methods: This was a nationwide, prospective, multiple-gate case-control study done in the Netherlands. Patients with physician-confirmed Lyme borreliosis, either early localised or disseminated, were consecutively included as cases at the start of antibiotic treatment. Controls were those without Lyme borreliosis from the general population (healthy controls) and those with potentially cross-reactive conditions (eg, autoimmune disease). We used three cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis (Spirofind Revised, iSpot Lyme, and LTT-MELISA) as index tests, and standard two-tier serological testing (STTT) as a comparator. Clinical data from Lyme borreliosis patients were collected at baseline and at 12 weeks after inclusion, and blood samples were obtained at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Control participants underwent clinical and laboratory assessments at baseline only., Findings: Cases comprised 271 patients with Lyme borreliosis (of whom 245 had early-localised Lyme borreliosis and 26 had disseminated disease) and controls comprised 228 participants without Lyme borreliosis from the general population and 41 participants with potentially cross-reactive conditions. Recruitment occurred between May 14, 2018, and March 16, 2020. The specificity of STTT in healthy controls (216 of 228 samples [94·7%, 95% CI 91·5-97·7]) was higher than that of the cellular tests: Spirofind (140 of 171 [81·9%, 76·1-87·2]), iSpot Lyme (32 of 103 [31·1%, 21·5-40·3]) and LTT-MELISA (100 of 190 [52·6%, 44·9-60·3]). Cellular tests had varying sensitivities: Spirofind (88 of 204 [43·1%, 36·4-50·4]), iSpot Lyme (51 of 94 [54·3%, 44·5-63·7]), and LTT-MELISA (66 of 218 [30·3%, 23·8-36·7]). The Spirofind and iSpot Lyme outperformed STTT for sensitivity, but were similar to the C6-ELISA (C6-ELISA: 135 of 270 [50·0%, 44·5-55·5]; STTT: 76 of 270 [28·1%, 23·0-33·6])., Interpretation: The cellular tests for Lyme borreliosis used in this study have a low specificity compared with serological tests, which leads to a high number of false-positive test results. We conclude that these cellular tests are unfit for clinical use at this stage., Funding: Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, AMC Foundation (Amsterdam UMC), and Ministry of Health of the Netherlands., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The assays under study were supplied by AID/GenID (Strassberg, Germany), InVitaLab (Neuss, Germany), QIAGEN (Germantown, MD, USA), and Oxford Immunotec (Oxford, UK), either free of charge or at a reduced price; none of the authors have received any direct financial compensation from any of these companies for this project or any other project. MEB and JWH collaborate with Bio-Rad Laboratories, ZEUS Scientific, and Pfizer on unrelated projects on Lyme borreliosis. JWH collaborates with Antigen Discovery on unrelated projects on Lyme borreliosis; JWH has an application for a provisional patent related to Borrelia antigens pending. FRvdS and LABJ collaborate with Hycult Biotech on developing novel diagnostic tests for Lyme borreliosis. B-JK and LABJ are coinventors of the Spirofind, an experimental in-house assay for Lyme borreliosis, which is owned by Radboudumc and was licensed for development to Boulder Diagnostics (Boulder, Colorado, USA) and subsequently Oxford Immunotec (Oxford, UK) until 2018. The other authors report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Lyme borreliosis is the most common vectorborne disease in the northern hemisphere. It usually begins with erythema migrans; early disseminated infection particularly causes multiple erythema migrans or neurologic disease, and late manifestations predominantly include arthritis in North America, and acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans (ACA) in Europe. Diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis is based on characteristic clinical signs and symptoms, complemented by serological confirmation of infection once an antibody response has been mounted. Manifestations usually respond to appropriate antibiotic regimens, but the disease can be followed by sequelae, such as immune arthritis or residual damage to affected tissues. A subset of individuals reports persistent symptoms, including fatigue, pain, arthralgia, and neurocognitive symptoms, which in some people are severe enough to fulfil the criteria for post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome. The reported prevalence of such persistent symptoms following antimicrobial treatment varies considerably, and its pathophysiology is unclear. Persistent active infection in humans has not been identified as a cause of this syndrome, and randomized treatment trials have invariably failed to show any benefit of prolonged antibiotic treatment. For prevention of Lyme borreliosis, post-exposure prophylaxis may be indicated in specific cases, and novel vaccine strategies are under development., Competing Interests: Competing interests We have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: none. Further details of The BMJ policy on financial interests are here: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-competing-interests, (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: The objective of this study was to assess the cumulative incidence of invasive candidiasis (IC) in intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe., Methods: A multinational, multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in 23 ICUs in 9 European countries, representing the first phase of the candidemia/intra-abdominal candidiasis in European ICU project (EUCANDICU)., Results: During the study period, 570 episodes of ICU-acquired IC were observed, with a cumulative incidence of 7.07 episodes per 1000 ICU admissions, with important between-center variability. Separated, non-mutually exclusive cumulative incidences of candidemia and IAC were 5.52 and 1.84 episodes per 1000 ICU admissions, respectively. Crude 30-day mortality was 42%. Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04 per year, 95% CI 1.02-1.06, p < 0.001), severe hepatic failure (OR 3.25, 95% 1.31-8.08, p 0.011), SOFA score at the onset of IC (OR 1.11 per point, 95% CI 1.04-1.17, p 0.001), and septic shock (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24-3.63, p 0.006) were associated with increased 30-day mortality in a secondary, exploratory analysis., Conclusions: The cumulative incidence of IC in 23 European ICUs was 7.07 episodes per 1000 ICU admissions. Future in-depth analyses will allow explaining part of the observed between-center variability, with the ultimate aim of helping to improve local infection control and antifungal stewardship projects and interventions.

Background: Invasive candidiasis and candidemia are frequently encountered in the nosocomial setting, particularly in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Objectives and Methods: To review the current management of invasive candidiasis and candidemia in non-neutropenic adult ICU patients based on a review of the literature and a European expert panel discussion., Results and Conclusions: Candida albicans remains the most frequently isolated fungal species followed by C. glabrata. The diagnosis of invasive candidiasis involves both clinical and laboratory parameters, but neither of these are specific. One of the main features in diagnosis is the evaluation of risk factor for infection which will identify patients in need of pre-emptive or empiric treatment. Clinical scores were built from those risk factors. Among laboratory diagnosis, a positive blood culture from a normally sterile site provides positive evidence. Surrogate markers have also been proposed like 1,3 beta-D: glucan level, mannans, or PCR testing. Invasive candidiasis and candidemia is a growing concern in the ICU, apart from cases with positive blood cultures or fluid/tissue biopsy, diagnosis is neither sensitive nor specific. The diagnosis remains difficult and is usually based on the evaluation of risk factors.