Search

ABSTRACT: Objective: Both ertapenem and other carbapenems, including imipenem, meropenem, and doripenem, are recommended in the treatment of extended-spectrum-β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales infection. However, whether ertapenem is as effective as other carbapenems for ESBL-producing Enterobacterales remains unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of ertapenem versus other carbapenems in the treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infection. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to 29 November 2022. Only studies comparing ertapenem and other carbapenems in the treatment of patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections were included. Results: A total of six studies meeting selection criteria were identified. Overall, ertapenem was associated with a significantly lower 30-d mortality when compared with other carbapenems (10.7% [46/431] vs. 17.7% [104/586]; risk ratio [RR], 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40–0.91). The ertapenem group exhibited a significantly shorter length of hospital stay than the other carbapenem groups (mean differences, -6.02 d; 95% CI, -9.39 to -2.64). No significant differences were noted between ertapenem and other carbapenem groups in terms of rates of clinical cure or improvement (RR, 1.11; 95% CI: 0.97–1.25) and microbiological eradication (RR, 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97–1.06). Conclusions: Ertapenem could be as effective as other carbapenems in the treatment of patients with ESBL-producing Enterobacterales infections.

BackgroundThe outcomes of older adult people acquiring SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was unclear. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of older adult patients with COVID-19 reinfection and those with primary infection.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used electronic medical records from the TriNetX Research Network. Older adult patients (aged ≥65 years) with COVID-19 between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, were included in the study. The patients were subsequently categorized into reinfection or primary infection groups, according to whether they manifested two distinct COVID-19 episodes with an intervening period of more than 90 days. Propensity score matching was performed for covariate adjustment between the reinfection and primary infection groups. The primary outcome was a composite outcome, including emergency department visits, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation use, and mortality, following primary infection and reinfection.ResultsAfter matching, 31,899 patients were identified in both the reinfection and primary infection groups. The risk of primary composite outcomes was 7.15% (n = 2,281) in the reinfection group and 7.53% (n = 2,403) in the primary infection group. No significant difference in the primary outcome was observed between groups (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.02, p = 0.17). In addition, there was no significant differences between the reinfection and primary infection groups in terms of emergency department visit (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11, p = 0.49), all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.02, p = 0.14), intensive care unit admission (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.28, p = 0.62), mechanical ventilation use (HR,1.35 95% CI, 0.69 to 2.64 p = 0.38), and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.20, p = 0.62).ConclusionThere were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between older adult patients with COVID-19 reinfection and those with primary infection.

AbstractObjective This study evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of interleukin-1 (IL-1) blockade for patients with COVID-19.Methods The PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles from their inception to 25 September 2022. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of IL-1 blockade in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 were included.Results This meta-analysis included seven RCTs. No significant difference in the all-cause mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 was observed between the IL-1 blockade and control groups (7.7 vs. 10.5%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–1.22; I2 = 18%). However, the study group was at significantly lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) compared with the control group (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.86; I2 = 24%). Finally, the risk of adverse events was similar between the two groups.Conclusions IL-1 blockade does not provide increased survival benefits in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but it may reduce the need for MV. Furthermore, it is a safe agent for use in the treatment of COVID-19.>

At present, there are more than 560 million confirmed cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. Although more than 98% of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can survive acute COVID, a significant portion of survivors can develop residual health problems, which is termed as long COVID. Although severe COVID-19 is generally associated with a high risk of long COVID, patients with asymptomatic or mild disease can also show long COVID. The definition of long COVID is inconsistent and its clinical manifestations are protean. In addition to general symptoms, such as fatigue, long COVID can affect many organ systems, including the respiratory, neurological, psychosocial, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic systems. Moreover, patients with long COVID may experience exercise intolerance and impaired daily function and quality of life. Long COVID may be caused by SARS-CoV-2 direct injury or its associated immune/inflammatory response. Assessment of patients with long COVID requires comprehensive evaluation, including history taking, physical examination, laboratory tests, radiography, and functional tests. However, there is no known effective treatment for long COVID. Based on the limited evidence, vaccines may help to prevent the development of long COVID. As long COVID is a new clinical entity that is constantly evolving, there are still many unknowns, and further investigation is warranted to enhance our understanding of this disease.

Aim This meta-analysis aimed to assess the usefulness of colchicine in patients with COVID-19.Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between database inception and November 12, 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of colchicine with other alternative treatments or placebos in patients with COVID-19 were included.Results Overall, 7 RCTs involving 16,024 patients were included; 7,794 patients were in the study group receiving colchicine and 8,230 were in the control group receiving placebo or standard treatment. The study and control groups had similar risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91–1.09; I2 = 0%). No significant difference was observed between the study and control groups in terms of the need for non-invasive ventilation (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83–1.03; I2 = 0%), the need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.32–1.32; I2 = 58%), and length of hospital stay (mean difference, −0.42 days; 95% CI, −1.95 to 1.11; I2 = 62%). In addition, colchicine was associated with significantly higher risks of gastrointestinal adverse events (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.56–2.11; I2 = 0%) and diarrhoea (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.75–2.56; I2 = 9%).Conclusions Colchicine does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, so it did not support the additional use of colchicine in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.Key messageColchicine could not reduce the mortality of patients with COVID-19.No significant difference was observed between the colchicine and comparators in terms of the need for non-invasive ventilation, need for mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay.Colchicine was associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal adverse events.

The emergence of the monkeypox outbreak in early 2022 has posed a new global health threat. As of July 8, 2022, 9069 laboratory-confirmed cases have been reported, and most of them are from non-endemic countries. The monkeypox virus is an enveloped double-stranded DNA virus, and preliminary genetic data suggest that the 2022 monkeypox virus belongs to the West African clade. In the current outbreak, human-to-human transmission has been the primary transmission mode. Although direct skin-to-skin contact with lesions during sexual activities can spread the virus, it remains unclear whether monkeypox can spread through sexual contact, specifically through contaminated body fluids. The typical presentation of monkeypox includes prodromal symptoms, followed by a rash that usually begins within 1–3 days of symptom onset, and the skin lesions can last for 2–4 weeks and then gradually resolve. However, the monkeypox outbreak in 2022 may exhibit atypical features. A definite diagnosis of monkeypox virus infection requires nucleic acid amplification testing via the polymerase chain reaction method. Supportive care is essential, and antiviral therapy is not considered for all affected patients, but recommended for those at highrisk for severe diseases. The mitigation of monkeypox outbreaks include enhanced case detection, case isolation, contact tracing, and post-exposure vaccination. In conclusion, the current monkeypox outbreak is a new threat during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians should be aware of this new situation, which presents a different scenario from those of prior outbreaks. Global health systems should develop effective strategies to mitigate the spread of monkeypox.

Objectives: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the usefulness of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to treat patients with COVID-19. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs published before November 7, 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of MSCs with other alternative treatments or placebos in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 were included. Results: Six RCTs were included, in which the MSC and control groups consisted of 158 and 135 patients, respectively. The patients who received MSCs had a significantly lower 28-day mortality rate (7.6% vs 21.5%; OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06–0.52; I2 = 0%) and significantly higher clinical improvement rate (OR, 6.05; 95% CI, 2.31–15.83; I2 = 0%) than the controls. The patients who received MSCs were associated with a similar risk of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs to the control group (AEs: OR, 33; 95% CI, 0.09–1.18; I2 = 59%; serious AEs: OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.02–4.41; I2 = 53%). Conclusions: MSC treatment may help to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19. In addition, MSC treatment appears to be a safe therapeutic option for patients with COVID-19.

The effects of tiotropium bromide soft mist inhalers (SMIs) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving mechanical ventilation remain unexplored. This study investigated the dynamic effects of a tiotropium SMI on lung mechanics and gas exchange in these patients. We analyzed 11 mechanically ventilated and hemodynamically stable patients with COPD who experienced acute exacerbation and were ready to be weaned from the ventilator. Two puffs of tiotropium (2.5 μg/puff) were administered with a T-adaptor connected to the ventilator circuit. Lung mechanics—peak inspiratory pressure, plateau pressure, mean airway pressure, maximum respiratory resistance (Rrs), and gas exchange function—were analyzed. The two-puff tiotropium SMI treatment led to the greatest reduction in Rrs at 6 h, with the Rrs returning to baseline gradually, and significantly improved the PaO2/FiO2 ratio at 24 h. Compared with baseline values, tiotropium SMI had the strongest effect on Rrs between hours 3 and 6 but did not significantly affect hemodynamic parameters. Tiotropium SMI administration in mechanically ventilated patients with COPD achieved the greatest reduction in Rrs at 6 h and significantly improved the PaO2/FiO2 ratio at 24 h. Future studies should investigate whether the bronchodilation effect can be improved with increased dosage or frequency.

This large-scale, controlled cohort study estimated the risks of lung cancer in patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) in Taiwan. We conducted this population-based study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan during the period from 1997 to 2010. Patients with GERD were diagnosed using endoscopy, and controls were matched to patients with GERD at a ratio of 1:4. We identified 15,412 patients with GERD and 60,957 controls. Compared with the controls, the patients with GERD had higher rates of osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, bronchiectasis, depression, anxiety, hypertension, dyslipidemia, chronic liver disease, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stroke, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease (all P

The clinical characteristics of Q fever are poorly identified in the tropics. Fever with pneumonia or hepatitis are the dominant presentations of acute Q fever, which exhibits geographic variability. In southern Taiwan, which is located in a tropical region, the role of Q fever in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has never been investigated.During the study period, May 2012 to April 2013, 166 cases of adult CAP and 15 cases of acute Q fever were prospectively investigated. Cultures of clinical specimens, urine antigen tests for Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila, and paired serologic assessments for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Q fever (Coxiella burnetii) were used for identifying pathogens associated with CAP. From April 2004 to April 2013 (the pre-study period), 122 cases of acute Q fever were also included retrospectively for analysis. The geographic distribution of Q fever and CAP cases was similar. Q fever cases were identified in warmer seasons and younger ages than CAP. Based on multivariate analysis, male gender, chills, thrombocytopenia, and elevated liver enzymes were independent characteristics associated with Q fever. In patients with Q fever, 95% and 13.5% of cases presented with hepatitis and pneumonia, respectively. Twelve (7.2%) cases of CAP were seropositive for C. burnetii antibodies, but none of them had acute Q fever. Among CAP cases, 22.9% had a CURB-65 score ≧2, and 45.8% had identifiable pathogens. Haemophilus parainfluenzae (14.5%), S. pneumoniae (6.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4.8%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (3.0%) were the most common pathogens identified by cultures or urine antigen tests. Moreover, M. pneumoniae, C. pneumoniae, and co-infection with 2 pathogens accounted for 9.0%, 7.8%, and 1.8%, respectively.In southern Taiwan, Q fever is an endemic disease with hepatitis as the major presentation and is not a common etiology of CAP.

Objective Our population-based research aimed to clarify the association between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and mortality risk in patients with lung cancer. Design Retrospective cohort study Setting National health insurance research database in Taiwan Participants All (n=1 37 077) Taiwanese residents who were diagnosed with lung cancer between 1997 and 2012 were identified. Eligible patients with baseline CKD (n=2269) were matched with controls (1:4, n=9076) without renal disease according to age, sex and the index day of lung cancer diagnosis. Methods The cumulative incidence of death was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the risk determinants were explored by the Cox proportional hazards model. Results Mortality occurred in 1866 (82.24%) and 7135 (78.61%) patients with and without CKD, respectively (P=0.0001). The cumulative incidences of mortality in patients with and without chronic renal disease were 72.8% vs 61.6% at 1 year, 82.0% vs 76.6% at 2 years and 88.9% vs 87.2% at 5 years, respectively. After adjusting for multiple confounding factors including age and comorbidities, Cox regression analysis revealed that CKD was associated with an increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR 1.38; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.47). Stratified analysis further showed that the association was consistent across patient subgroups. Conclusion Comorbidity associated with CKD is a risk factor for mortality in patients with lung cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]