Pritt, Bobbi S

Abstract Objectives Recent work has demonstrated that automated fluorescence flow cytometry (FLC) is a potential alternative for the detection and quantification of Plasmodium parasites. The objective of this study was to apply this novel FLC method to detect and quantify Babesia parasites in venous blood and compare results to light microscopy and polymerase chain reaction methods. Methods An automated hematology/malaria analyzer (XN-31; Sysmex) was used to detect and quantify B microti–infected red blood cells from residual venous blood samples (n = 250: Babesia positive, n = 170; Babesia negative, n = 80). As no instrument software currently exists for Babesia, qualitative and quantitative machine learning (ML) algorithms were developed to facilitate analysis. Results Performance of the ML models was verified against the XN-31 software using P falciparum–infected samples. When applied to Babesia-infected samples, the qualitative ML model demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.956 (sensitivity, 95.9%; specificity, 83.3%) relative to polymerase chain reaction. For valid scattergrams, the qualitive model achieved an AUC of 1.0 (sensitivity and specificity, 100%), while the quantitative model demonstrated an AUC of 0.986 (sensitivity, 94.4%; specificity, 100%). Conclusions This investigation demonstrates that Babesia parasites can be detected and quantified directly from venous blood using FLC. Although promising, opportunities remain to improve the general applicability of the method.

Abstract Background Shotgun and targeted metagenomic sequencing have been shown in separate studies to be potentially useful for culture-free pathogen identification in blood and/or plasma of patients with infective endocarditis (IE). However, the 2 approaches have not been directly compared. The aim of this study was to compare shotgun metagenomic sequencing with targeted metagenomic sequencing (tMGS) for organism identification in blood or plasma of patients with IE. Methods Patients with possible or definite IE were prospectively enrolled from October 2020 to July 2021. Shotgun metagenomic sequencing was performed with the Karius test, which uses microbial cell-free DNA (mcfDNA) sequencing to detect, identify, and quantitate DNA-based pathogens in plasma. tMGS was performed using a 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) polymerase chain reaction assay targeting the V1 to V3 regions of the 16S rRNA gene. Results were compared using the McNemar test of paired proportions. Results Samples from 34 patients were investigated. The Karius test was positive in 24/34 (71%), including 3/6 (50%) with blood culture–negative endocarditis (BCNE), which was not significantly different from the positivity rate of tMGS (P = .41). Results of the Karius test were concordant with tMGS in 75% of cases. The Karius test detected 2 cases of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among the 7 S. aureus detections, in accordance with results of phenotypic susceptibility testing. The combination of blood cultures, the Karius test, and tMGS found a potential causative pathogen in 33/34 (97%), including 5/6 with BCNE. Conclusions The Karius test and tMGS yielded comparable detection rates; however, beyond organism identification, the Karius test generated potentially useful antibiotic resistance data.

ABSTRACT Human infections with the protozoan Lophomonas have been increasingly reported in the medical literature over the past three decades. Initial reports were based on microscopic identification of the purported pathogen in respiratory specimens. Later, a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was developed to detect Lophomonas blattarum , following which there has been a significant increase in reports. In this minireview, we thoroughly examine the published reports of Lophomonas infection to evaluate its potential role as a human pathogen. We examined the published images and videos of purported Lophomonas, compared its morphology and motility characteristics with host bronchial ciliated epithelial cells and true L. blattarum derived from cockroaches, analyzed the published PCR that is being used for its diagnosis, and reviewed the clinical data of patients reported in the English and Chinese literature. From our analysis, we conclude that the images and videos from human specimens do not represent true Lophomonas and are predominantly misidentified ciliated epithelial cells. Additionally, we note that there is insufficient clinical evidence to attribute the cases to Lophomonas infection, as the clinical manifestations are non-specific, possibly caused by other infections and comorbidities, and there is no associated tissue pathology attributable to Lophomonas . Finally, our analysis reveals that the published PCR is not specific to Lophomonas and can amplify DNA from commensal trichomonads. Based on this thorough review, we emphasize the need for rigorous scientific scrutiny before a microorganism is acknowledged as a novel human pathogen and discuss the potential harms of misdiagnoses for patient care and scientific literature.

ABSTRACT Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has had an unprecedented impact on human health and highlights the need for genomic epidemiology studies to increase our understanding of virus evolution and spread and to inform policy decisions. We sequenced viral genomes from over 22,000 patient samples tested at Mayo Clinic Laboratories between 2020 and 2022 and used Bayesian phylodynamics to describe county and regional spread in Minnesota. The earliest calculated introduction into Minnesota was to Hennepin County from a domestic source around 22 January 2020; 6 weeks before the first confirmed case in the state. This led to the virus spreading to Northern Minnesota and, eventually, the rest of the state. International introductions were most abundant in Hennepin (home to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport) totaling 45 (out of 107) over the 2-year period. Southern Minnesota counties were most common for domestic introductions, with 19 (out of 64), potentially driven by bordering states such as Iowa and Wisconsin as well as Illinois, which is nearby. Hennepin also was, by far, the most dominant source of in-state transmissions to other Minnesota locations ( n = 772) over the 2-year period. We also analyzed the diversity of the location source of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in each county and noted the timing of state-wide policies as well as trends in clinical cases. Neither the number of clinical cases nor the major policy decisions, such as the end of the lockdown period in 2020 or the end of all restrictions in 2021, appeared to have an impact on virus diversity across each individual county. IMPORTANCE We analyzed over 22,000 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genomes of patient samples tested at Mayo Clinic Laboratories during a 2-year period in the COVID-19 pandemic, which included Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants of concern to examine the roles and relationships of Minnesota virus transmission. We found that Hennepin County, the most populous county, drove the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in the state after including the formation of earlier clades including 20A, 20C, and 20G, as well as variants of concern Alpha and Delta. We also found that Hennepin County was the source for most of the county-to-county introductions after an initial predicted introduction with the virus in early 2020 from an international source, while other counties acted as transmission “sinks.” In addition, major policies, such as the end of the lockdown period in 2020 or the end of all restrictions in 2021, did not appear to have an impact on virus diversity across individual counties.

Read the full article for the answer.

Sequencing is increasingly used for infective endocarditis (IE) diagnosis. Here, the performance of 16S rRNA gene PCR/sequencing of heart valves utilized in routine clinical practice was compared with conventional IE diagnostics.

ImportanceEvidence on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 therapies across a diverse population with varied risk factors is needed to inform clinical practice.ObjectiveTo assess the safety of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (nMAbs) for the treatment of COVID-19 and their association with adverse outcomes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study included 167 183 patients from a consortium of 4 health care systems based in California, Minnesota, Texas, and Utah. The study included nonhospitalized patients 12 years and older with a positive COVID-19 laboratory test collected between November 9, 2020, and January 31, 2022, who met at least 1 emergency use authorization criterion for risk of a poor outcome.ExposureFour nMAb products (bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, and sotrovimab) administered in the outpatient setting.Main Outcomes and MeasuresClinical and SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequence data and propensity-adjusted marginal structural models were used to assess the association between treatment with nMAbs and 4 outcomes: all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalization, death, and a composite of hospitalization or death within 14 days and 30 days of the index date (defined as the date of the first positive COVID-19 test or the date of referral). Patient index dates were categorized into 4 variant epochs: pre-Delta (November 9, 2020, to June 30, 2021), Delta (July 1 to November 30, 2021), Delta and Omicron BA.1 (December 1 to 31, 2021), and Omicron BA.1 (January 1 to 31, 2022).ResultsAmong 167 183 patients, the mean (SD) age was 47.0 (18.5) years; 95 669 patients (57.2%) were female at birth, 139 379 (83.4%) were White, and 138 900 (83.1%) were non-Hispanic. A total of 25 241 patients received treatment with nMAbs. Treatment with nMAbs was associated with lower odds of ED visits within 14 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85), hospitalization within 14 days (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.59), and death within 30 days (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20). The association between nMAbs and reduced risk of hospitalization was stronger in unvaccinated patients (14-day hospitalization: OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.59), and the associations with hospitalization and death were stronger in immunocompromised patients (hospitalization within 14 days: OR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.24-0.41]; death within 30 days: OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06-0.27]). The strength of associations of nMAbs increased incrementally among patients with a greater probability of poor outcomes; for example, the ORs for hospitalization within 14 days were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.48-0.72) among those in the third (moderate) risk stratum and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.32-0.53) among those in the fifth (highest) risk stratum. The association of nMAb treatment with reduced risk of hospitalizations within 14 days was strongest during the Delta variant epoch (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.31-0.43) but not during the Omicron BA.1 epoch (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.68-2.47). These findings were corroborated in the subset of patients with viral genomic data. Treatment with nMAbs was associated with a significant mortality benefit in all variant epochs (pre-Delta: OR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.08-0.33]; Delta: OR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.09-0.22]; Delta and Omicron BA.1: OR, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03-0.35]; and Omicron BA.1: OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.02-0.93]). Potential adverse drug events were identified in 38 treated patients (0.2%).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, nMAb treatment for COVID-19 was safe and associated with reductions in ED visits, hospitalization, and death, although it was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization during the Omicron BA.1 epoch. These findings suggest that targeted risk stratification strategies may help optimize future nMAb treatment decisions.