Badley, Andrew D

Background/Objectives: Staphylococci are the most common causes of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI); new antimicrobials are needed to manage these difficult infections. Nisin A is a lantibiotic peptide derived from Lactococcus lactis that has antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacteria, including staphylococci, and is an FDA-approved preservative used in the food and dairy industry. Here, the in vitro nisin A susceptibility of PJI-associated staphylococci was assessed. Methods: The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), minimum biofilm inhibitory concentrations (MBICs), and minimum biofilm bactericidal concentrations (MBBCs) of nisin A were measured by broth microdilution against 106 staphylococcus isolates isolated from PJI. MICs were assessed using 5 × 105 CFU/mL plus nisin A. For MBICs, biofilms were grown on pegged lids for 6 h, followed by 20 h of treatment. For MBBCs, pegged lids were transferred to plates containing media only for 20 h. The results were determined as the lowest concentrations with no visual growth. Two-dimensional MICs with nisin A and vancomycin were assessed for 20 isolates. Fractional inhibitory concentrations (FICs) were calculated to determine synergistic, additive, antagonistic, or indifferent interactions. Results: The MIC that inhibited 90% of S. aureus and S. epidermidis was 4 µg/mL, apart from for the MRSA subset (8 µg/mL). The MBIC that inhibited 90% of isolates was 4 µg/mL. The MBBCs ranged from 4 to 256 µg/mL. When tested together, nisin A and vancomycin yielded an FIC between 1.25 and 1.5, indicative of indifference, except for one isolate each of MRSA and MSSA, for which an additive effect (FIC of 1) was observed. Conclusions: Nisin A showed inhibitory activity against staphylococci that cause PJI.

PURPOSE: The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). METHODS: A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19–related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19–related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19–related hospital admission. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

Abstract Background Statins up-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while also exhibiting pleiotropic antiviral, antithrombotic, and anti-inflammatory properties. Uncertainties exist about their effect on the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to examine the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We searched Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and the preprint server medRxiv from inception to December 2020. We assessed the quality of eligible studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. We pooled adjusted relative risk (aRRs) of the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index. Results Overall, 19 (16 cohorts and 3 case-control) studies were eligible, with a total of 395 513 patients. Sixteen of 19 studies had low or moderate risk of bias. Among 109 080 patients enrolled in 13 separate studies, prior statin use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (pooled aRR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .56–.77], I2 = 84.1%) and a reduced risk of severe COVID-19 was also observed in 48 110 patients enrolled in 9 studies (pooled aRR, 0.73 [95% CI, .57–.94], I2 = 82.8%), with no evidence of publication bias. Conclusions Cumulative evidence suggests that prior statin use is associated with lower risks of mortality or severe disease in patients with COVID-19. These data support the continued use of statins medications in patients with an indication for lipid-lowering therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A cure for HIV would require eliminating cells that contain the virus in a latent form from the body. Current antiretroviral medications are unable to rid the body of latently infected cells. Here, we show that a combination of investigational agents—ixazomib plus venetoclax—which reactivate latent virus and predispose infected cells to apoptosis may reduce latent virus in a T cell model, but at the expense of nonspecific toxicity in primary cells.

Abstract Here we analyze hospitalized andintensive care unit coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patient outcomes from the international VIRUS registry ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04323787 ). We find that COVID‐19 patients administered unfractionated heparin but not enoxaparin have a higher mortality‐rate (390 of 1012 = 39%) compared to patients administered enoxaparin but not unfractionated heparin (270 of 1939 = 14%), presenting a risk ratio of 2.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.42, 3.16]; p = 4.45e−52). This difference persists even after balancing on a number of covariates including demographics, comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and method of oxygenation, with an increased mortality rate on discharge from the hospital of 37% (268 of 733) for unfractionated heparin versus 22% (154 of 711) for enoxaparin, presenting a risk ratio of 1.69 (95% CI: [1.42, 2.00]; p = 1.5e−8). In these balanced cohorts, a number of complications occurred at an elevated rate for patients administered unfractionated heparin compared to patients administered enoxaparin, including acute kidney injury, acute cardiac injury, septic shock, and anemia. Furthermore, a higher percentage of Black/African American COVID patients (414 of 1294 [32%]) were noted to receive unfractionated heparin compared to White/Caucasian COVID patients (671 of 2644 [25%]), risk ratio 1.26 (95% CI: [1.14, 1.40]; p = 7.5e−5). After balancing upon available clinical covariates, this difference in anticoagulant use remained statistically significant (311 of 1047 [30%] for Black/African American vs. 263 of 1047 [25%] for White/Caucasian, p = .02, risk ratio 1.18; 95% CI: [1.03, 1.36]). While retrospective studies cannot suggest any causality, these findings motivate the need for follow‐up prospective research into the observed racial disparity in anticoagulant use and outcomes for severe COVID‐19 patients.

Abstract Large Phase 3 clinical trials of the two FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines, mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), have demonstrated efficacies of 94.1% (n = 30,420, 95% CI: 89.3-96.8) and 95% (n = 43,448, 95% CI: 90.3-97.6) in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, respectively. Given the ongoing vaccine rollout to healthcare personnel and residents of long-term care facilities, here we provide a preliminary assessment of real-world vaccination efficacy in 62,598 individuals from the Mayo Clinic and associated health system (Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin) between December 1st 2020 and February 8th 2021. Our retrospective analysis contrasts 31,299 individuals receiving at least one dose of either vaccine with 31,299 unvaccinated individuals who are propensity-matched based on demographics, location (zip code), and number of prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests. Administration of two COVID-19 vaccine doses was 89.0% effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (95% CI: 69.1-97.2%) with onset at least 36 days after the first dose. Furthermore, vaccinated patients who were subsequently diagnosed with COVID-19 had significantly lower 14-day hospital admission rates than propensity-matched unvaccinated COVID-19 patients (3.7% vs. 9.2%; Relative Risk: 0.4; p-value: 0.007). Building upon the previous randomized trials of these vaccines, this study demonstrates their real-world effectiveness in reducing the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity among individuals at highest risk for infection.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with significant morbidity and mortality throughout the world, predominantly due to lung and cardiovascular injury. The virus responsible for COVID-19—severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2—gains entry into host cells via ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2). ACE2 is a primary enzyme within the key counter-regulatory pathway of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), which acts to oppose the actions of Ang (angiotensin) II by generating Ang-(1–7) to reduce inflammation and fibrosis and mitigate end organ damage. As COVID-19 spans multiple organ systems linked to the cardiovascular system, it is imperative to understand clearly how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may affect the multifaceted RAS. In addition, recognition of the role of ACE2 and the RAS in COVID-19 has renewed interest in its role in the pathophysiology of cardiovascular disease in general. We provide researchers with a framework of best practices in basic and clinical research to interrogate the RAS using appropriate methodology, especially those who are relatively new to the field. This is crucial, as there are many limitations inherent in investigating the RAS in experimental models and in humans. We discuss sound methodological approaches to quantifying enzyme content and activity (ACE, ACE2), peptides (Ang II, Ang-[1–7]), and receptors (types 1 and 2 Ang II receptors, Mas receptor). Our goal is to ensure appropriate research methodology for investigations of the RAS in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and COVID-19 to ensure optimal rigor and reproducibility and appropriate interpretation of results from these investigations.