Gupta, Nitin

Introduction: Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) is a multidrug-resistant pathogen commonly associated with nosocomial infections. The resistance profile and ability to produce biofilm make it a complicated organism to treat effectively. Cefoperazone sulbactam (CS) is commonly used to treat AB, but the associated data are scarce. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of articles downloaded from Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (through June 2022) to study the efficacy of CS in treating AB infections. Our review evaluated patients treated with CS alone and CS in combination with other antibiotics separately. The following outcomes were studied: clinical cure, microbiological cure, and mortality from any cause. Results: We included 16 studies where CS was used for the treatment of AB infections. This included 11 studies where CS was used alone and 10 studies where CS was used in combination. The outcomes were similar in both groups. We found that the pooled clinical cure, microbiological cure, and mortality with CS alone for AB were 70%, 44%, and 20%, respectively. The pooled clinical cure, microbiological cure, and mortality when CS was used in combination with other antibiotics were 72%, 43%, and 21%, respectively. Conclusions: CS alone or in combination needs to be further explored for the treatment of AB infections. There is a need for randomized controlled trials with comparator drugs to evaluate the drug’s effectiveness.

Real-time RT-PCR is considered the gold standard confirmatory test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, many scientists disagree, and it is essential to understand that several factors and variables can cause a false-negative test. In this context, cycle threshold (Ct) values are being utilized to diagnose or predict SARS-CoV-2 infection. This practice has a significant clinical utility as Ct values can be correlated with the viral load. In addition, Ct values have a strong correlation with multiple haematological and biochemical markers. However, it is essential to consider that Ct values might be affected by pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytical variables such as collection technique, specimen type, sampling time, viral kinetics, transport and storage conditions, nucleic acid extraction, viral RNA load, primer designing, real-time PCR efficiency, and Ct value determination method. Therefore, understanding the interpretation of Ct values and other influential factors could play a crucial role in interpreting viral load and disease severity. In several clinical studies consisting of small or large sample sizes, several discrepancies exist regarding a significant positive correlation between the Ct value and disease severity in COVID-19. In this context, a revised review of the literature has been conducted to fill the knowledge gaps regarding the correlations between Ct values and severity/fatality rates of patients with COVID-19. Various databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched up to April 2021 by using keywords including “RT-PCR or viral load”, “SARS-CoV-2 and RT-PCR”, “Ct value and viral load”, “Ct value or COVID-19”. Research articles were extracted and selected independently by the authors and included in the present review based on their relevance to the study. The current narrative review explores the correlation of Ct values with mortality, disease progression, severity, and infectivity. We also discuss the factors that can affect these values, such as collection technique, type of swab, sampling method, etc.

Abstract Background: Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection. Results: A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections. Conclusion: Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.

AbstractThe purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID‐19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID‐19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full‐text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta‐analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = −0.49 days [95% CI = −3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID‐19.