Search

Introduction: By the end of 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 rapidly spread all over the world impacting mental health and sleep habits. Insomnia, impaired sleep quality, and circadian rhythm alterations were all observed during the pandemic, especially among healthcare workers and in patients with acute and post-acute COVID-19. Sleep disruption may induce a pro-inflammatory state associated with an impairment of immune system function., Objective: We investigated the relationship between sleep alterations, psychological disorders, and inflammatory blood biomarkers in patients with post-acute COVID-19., Methods: We enrolled 47 subjects diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia at Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital (Udine, Italy) between March and May 2020. Selected patients were evaluated at 2 months (T1) and 10 months (T2) after discharge. Each time, we collected clinical interviews, neurological examinations, and self-administered questionnaires to assess sleep and life quality, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Blood biomarkers of endothelial activation, neuroinflammation, and inflammatory cytokines were also measured at each follow-up. Collected variables were analyzed using comparisons between groups and linear regression models., Results: Prevalence of insomnia increased from 10.6% up to 27.3% after COVID-19. Poor sleep quality was found in 41.5% of patients at both study visits. At T1 follow-up, poor sleepers showed higher levels of neurofilament light chain, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and interleukin 10; no significant associations were found between sleep quality and psychological disorders. At T2 follow-up, lower sleep quality was associated with higher levels of vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 and interleukin 8, but also with higher scores for anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder., Conclusion: Our results suggest an association of poor sleep quality with both psychological disorders and neuroinflammation, although at different times, in previously hospitalized patients with moderate-to-critical COVID-19., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Pellitteri, Surcinelli, De Martino, Fabris, Janes, Bax, Marini, Milanic, Piani, Isola, Gigli and Valente.)

(1) Background: Niemann-Pick type C disease (NPCD) is an autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder caused by mutations in the NPC1 or NPC2 genes. The clinical presentation is characterized by visceral and neurological involvement. Apart from a small group of patients presenting a severe perinatal form, all patients develop progressive and fatal neurological disease with an extremely variable age of onset. Different biomarkers have been identified; however, they poorly correlate with neurological disease. In this study we assessed the possible role of plasma NfL as a neurological disease-associated biomarker in NPCD. (2) Methods: Plasma NfL levels were measured in 75 healthy controls and 26 patients affected by NPCD (24 NPC1 and 2 NPC2; 39 samples). (3) Results: Plasma NfL levels in healthy controls correlated with age and were significantly lower in pediatric patients as compared to adult subjects ( p = 0.0017). In both pediatric and adult NPCD patients, the plasma levels of NfL were significantly higher than in age-matched controls ( p < 0.0001). Most importantly, plasma NfL levels in NPCD patients with neurological involvement were significantly higher than the levels found in patients free of neurological signs at the time of sampling, both in the pediatric and the adult group ( p = 0.0076; p = 0.0032, respectively). Furthermore, in adults the NfL levels in non-neurological patients were comparable with those found in age-matched controls. No correlations between plasma NfL levels and NPCD patient age at sampling or plasma levels of cholestan 3β-5α-6β-triol were found. (4) Conclusions: These data suggest a promising role of plasma NfL as a possible neurological disease-associated biomarker in NPCD.

Objectives: Variation in antibiotic use may reflect inappropriate use. We aimed to systematically describe the variation in measures for antibiotic use among settings or providers. This study was conducted as part of the innovative medicines initiative (IMI)-funded international project DRIVE-AB., Methods: We searched for studies published in MEDLINE from January 2004 to January 2015 reporting variation in measures for systemic antibiotic use (e.g. DDDs) in inpatient and outpatient settings. The ratio between a study's reported maximum and minimum values of a given measure [maximum:minimum ratio (MMR)] was calculated as a measure of variation. Similar measures were grouped into categories and when possible the overall median ratio and IQR were calculated., Results: One hundred and forty-three studies were included, of which 85 (59.4%) were conducted in Europe and 12 (8.4%) in low- to middle-income countries. Most studies described the variation in the quantity of antibiotic use in the inpatient setting (81/143, 56.6%), especially among hospitals (41/81, 50.6%). The most frequent measure was DDDs with different denominators, reported in 23/81 (28.4%) inpatient studies and in 28/62 (45.2%) outpatient studies. For this measure, we found a median MMR of 3.7 (IQR 2.6-5.0) in 4 studies reporting antibiotic use in ICUs in DDDs/1000 patient-days and a median MMR of 2.3 (IQR 1.5-3.2) in 18 studies reporting outpatient antibiotic use in DDDs/1000 inhabitant-days. Substantial variation was also identified in other measures., Conclusions: Our review confirms the large variation in antibiotic use even across similar settings and providers. Data from low- and middle-income countries are under-represented. Further studies should try to better elucidate reasons for the observed variation to facilitate interventions that reduce unwarranted practice variation. In addition, the heterogeneity of reported measures clearly shows that there is need for standardization.

Background: This study was conducted as part of the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project and aimed to develop generic quality indicators (QIs) for responsible antibiotic use in the inpatient setting., Methods: A RAND-modified Delphi method was applied. First, QIs were identified by a systematic review. A complementary search was performed on web sites of relevant organizations. Duplicates were removed and disease and patient-specific QIs were combined into generic indicators. The relevance of these QIs was appraised by a multidisciplinary international stakeholder panel through two questionnaires and an in-between consensus meeting., Results: The systematic review retrieved 70 potential generic QIs. The QIs were appraised by 25 international stakeholders with diverse backgrounds (medical community, public health, patients, antibiotic research and development, regulators, governments). Ultimately, 51 QIs were selected in consensus. QIs with the highest relevance score included: (i) an antibiotic plan should be documented in the medical record at the start of the antibiotic treatment; (ii) the results of bacteriological susceptibility testing should be documented in the medical record; (iii) the local guidelines should correspond to the national guidelines but should be adapted based on local resistance patterns; (iv) an antibiotic stewardship programme should be in place at the healthcare facility; and (v) allergy status should be taken into account when antibiotics are prescribed., Conclusions: This systematic and stepwise method combining evidence from literature and stakeholder opinion led to multidisciplinary international consensus on generic inpatient QIs that can be used globally to assess the quality of antibiotic use.

Objectives: Quality indicators (QIs) assessing the appropriateness of antibiotic use are essential to identify targets for improvement and guide antibiotic stewardship interventions. The aim of this study was to develop a set of QIs for the outpatient setting from a global perspective., Methods: A systematic literature review was performed by searching MEDLINE and relevant web sites in order to retrieve a list of QIs. These indicators were extracted from published trials, guidelines, literature reviews or consensus procedures. This evidence-based set of QIs was evaluated by a multidisciplinary, international group of stakeholders using a RAND-modified Delphi procedure, using two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting between them. Stakeholders appraised the QIs' relevance using a nine-point Likert scale. This work is part of the DRIVE-AB project., Results: The systematic literature review identified 43 unique QIs, from 54 studies and seven web sites. Twenty-five stakeholders from 14 countries participated in the consensus procedure. Ultimately, 32 QIs were retained, with a high level of agreement. The set of QIs included structure, process and outcome indicators, targeting both high- and middle- to low-income settings. Most indicators focused on general practice, addressing the common indications for antibiotic use in the community (particularly urinary and respiratory tract infections), and the organization of healthcare facilities. Twelve indicators specifically addressed outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT)., Conclusions: We identified a set of 32 outpatient QIs to measure the appropriateness of antibiotic use. These QIs can be used to identify targets for improvement and to evaluate the effects of antibiotic stewardship interventions.

Background: Quantifying antibiotic use is an essential element of antibiotic stewardship since it allows comparison between different settings and time windows, and measurement of the impact of interventions. However, quantity metrics (QMs) and methods have not been standardized., Objectives: To propose a set of QMs for antibiotic use in inpatients (IQMs) that are accepted globally by professionals in a range of disciplines. The study was conducted within the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project., Methods: A systematic literature review using MEDLINE identified articles on measuring inpatient antibiotic use, published up to 29 January 2015. A consensually selected list of national and international web sites was screened for additional IQMs. IQMs were classified according to the type of numerator used and presented to a multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders. A RAND-modified Delphi consensus procedure, which consisted of two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting, was performed., Results: The systematic literature review and web site search identified 168 eligible articles from which an initial list of 20 IQMs, composed of 20 different numerators and associated denominators was developed. The consensus procedure resulted in a final set of 12 IQMs. Among this final set, DDDs per 100(0) patient-days and days of therapy per patient-days were most frequently found in the review. The panel recommended that antibiotic use should be expressed in at least two metrics simultaneously., Conclusions: Our consensus procedure identified a set of IQMs that we propose as an evidence-based global standard.

Background: The international Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) project DRIVE-AB (Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use) aims to develop a global definition of 'responsible' antibiotic use., Objectives: To identify consensually validated quantity metrics for antibiotic use in the outpatient setting., Methods: First, outpatient quantity metrics (OQMs) were identified by a systematic search of literature and web sites published until 12 December 2014. Identified OQMs were evaluated by a multidisciplinary, international stakeholder panel using a RAND-modified Delphi procedure. Two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting between them were conducted to assess OQM relevance for measuring the quantity of antibiotic use on a nine-point Likert scale, to add comments or to propose new metrics., Results: A total of 597 articles were screened, 177 studies met criteria for full-text screening and 138 were finally included. Twenty different OQMs were identified and appraised by 23 stakeholders. During the first survey, 14 OQMs were excluded and 6 qualified for discussion. During the face-to-face meeting, 10 stakeholders retained five OQMs and suggestions were made considering context and combination of metrics. The final set of metrics included defined daily doses, treatments/courses and prescriptions per defined population, treatments/courses and prescriptions per defined number of physician contacts and seasonal variation of total antibiotic use., Conclusions: A small set of consensually validated metrics to assess the quantity of antibiotic use in the outpatient setting was obtained, enabling (inter)national comparisons. The OQMs will help build a global conceptual framework for responsible antibiotic use.