Faculty Bibliography

Invasive candidiasis is a common healthcare-associated infection with a high mortality rate that can exceed 60% in cases of septic shock. Blood culture performance is far from ideal, due to the long time to positivity and suppression by antifungal agents. The T2 Magnetic Resonance (T2MR) assay is an FDA-approved qualitative molecular diagnostic method that can detect and speciate the 5 most common Candida spp.; namely, Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida parapsilosis, Candida tropicalis, and Candida krusei, in approximately 5 h. In a multicenter clinical trial that included both a prospective and a contrived arm to represent the full range of clinically relevant concentrations of Candida spp., T2MR demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 91.1% and 98.1%, respectively. The utility of T2MR in candidemia depends on the prevalence of disease in each clinical setting. In intensive care units and other high-prevalence settings, the incorporation of T2MR in diagnostic algorithms is very appealing. T2MR is expected to allow timely initiation of antifungal therapy and help with anti-fungal stewardship. In low-prevalence settings, the positive predictive value of T2MR might not be enough to justify initiation of antifungal treatment in itself. The performance of T2MR has not been studied in cases of deep-seated candidiasis. Despite some promising evidence in published clinical trials, further studies are needed to determine the performance of T2MR in invasive candidiasis without candidemia. Overall, experience with T2MR in everyday clinical practice is evolving but, in the right setting, this technology is expected to provide "actionable information" for the management of patients evaluated for candidemia.

There is a substantial effort to increase the accuracy of conflicts of interest (COI) reporting, and reduce the influence of COI between physicians and industry, especially as it relates to clinical practice guidelines.We used the newly implemented Open Payments dataset to evaluate the accuracy of COI disclosures of authors of clinical practice guidelines that were either newly published or revised within 2014 and were included in the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) website (maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Authors were considered as having inaccurate COI disclosure if they had not reported all companies from which they had received funds >$5000 in the 12 months preceding the guideline's publication.We identified 223 guidelines that were either newly published (109/223; 48.9%) or revised (114/223; 51.1%) within 2014 and were included in the NGC website. Among the 1329 guideline authors with available Open Payments data, 523 received >$5000 from at least 1 healthcare-associated entity. However, only 56 out of the 523 authors (10.7%) were found to have accurate COI disclosure. The percentage of authors with accurate COI disclosure in revised guidelines was significantly lower than in newly published guidelines (6.8% vs 14.3%; P < 0.01) and was also found to differ between specialties. Furthermore, authors were less likely to inaccurately disclose "research payments" (37/49, 75.5%) compared to "general payments" (488/559, 87.3%, P = 0.02) as well as "other/associated research funding" (430/506, 85.0%, P = 0.08). No statistically significant association was detected between funding amount and disclosure accuracy.The majority of guideline authors lacked significant COIs, but among authors that received significant funds from at least 1 healthcare-associated entity the frequency of accurate disclosure was low. These findings indicate that the current process of disclosing COIs may be suboptimal and a proactive approach should be adopted in order to minimize COI reporting discrepancies. Furthermore, every effort should be undertaken to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the data recorded in the Open Payments database.

Rapid diagnostic methods for fungal infections are long awaited and are expected to improve outcomes through early initiation of targeted antifungal therapy. T2Candida panel is a novel qualitative diagnostic platform that was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for diagnosis of candidemia with a mean time to species identification of less than 5 h. T2Candida panel is performed on the fully automated T2Dx instrument in whole blood K₂EDTA specimens and is able to detect 5 Candida spp., namely Candida albicans, Candida tropicalis, Candida parapsilosis, Candida krusei, and Candida glabrata. By combining magnetic resonance with molecular diagnostics, T2Candida panel amplifies DNA and detects the amplified product by amplicon-induced agglomeration of supermagnetic particles and T2 Magnetic Resonance (T2MR) measurement. Here we describe the materials and methods needed to diagnose candidemia with the T2Candida panel.

The elderly population is particularly vulnerable to Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), but the epidemiology of CDI in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) is unknown.We performed a retrospective cohort study and used US 2011 LTCF resident data from the Minimum Data Set 3.0 linked to Medicare claims. We extracted CDI cases based on International Classification of Diseases-9 coding, and compared residents with the diagnosis of CDI to those who did not have a CDI diagnosis during their LTCF stay. We estimated CDI prevalence rates and calculated 3-month mortality rates.The study population consisted of 2,190,613 admissions (median age 82 years; interquartile range 76-88; female to male ratio 2:1; >80% whites), 45,500 of whom had a CDI diagnosis. The nationwide CDI prevalence rate was 1.85 per 100 LTCF admissions (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.83-1.87). The CDI rate was lower in the South (1.54%; 95% CI 1.51-1.57) and higher in the Northeast (2.29%; 95% CI 2.25-2.33). Older age, white race, presence of a feeding tube, unhealed pressure ulcers, end-stage renal disease, cirrhosis, bowel incontinence, prior tracheostomy, chemotherapy, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were independently related to "high risk" for CDI. Residents with a CDI diagnosis were more likely to be admitted to an acute care hospital (40% vs 31%, P < 0.001) and less likely to be discharged to the community (46% vs 54%, P < 0.001) than those not reported with CDI during stay. Importantly, CDI was associated with higher mortality (24.7% vs 18.1%, P = 0.001).CDI is common among the elderly residents of LTCFs and is associated with significant increase in 3-month mortality. The prevalence is higher in the Northeast and risk stratification can be used in CDI prevention policies.

UNLABELLED:Background.  Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are at higher risk for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). METHODS:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies from 1983 to 2015 using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases to study the prevalence and outcomes of CDI in this patient population. Among the 9146 articles retrieved from the studies, 22 articles, which included a total of 80 835 ICU patients, were included in our final analysis. Results.  The prevalence of CDI among ICU patients was 2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1%-2%), and among diarrheic ICU patients the prevalence was 11% (95% CI, 6%-17%). Among CDI patients, 25% (95% CI, 5%-51%) were diagnosed with pseudomembranous colitis, and the estimated length of ICU stay before CDI acquisition was 10.74 days (95% CI, 5%-51%). The overall hospital mortality among ICU patients with CDI was 32% (95% CI, 26%-39%), compared with 24% (95% CI, 14%-36%) among those without CDI presenting a statistically significant difference in mortality risk (P = .030). It is worth noting that the length of ICU and hospital stay among CDI patients was significantly longer, compared with non-CDI patients (standardized mean of difference [SMD] = 0.49, 95% CI, .39%-.6%, P = .00 and SMD = 1.15, 95% CI, .44%-1.91%, P = .003, respectively). It is noteworthy that the morbidity score at ICU admission (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II [APACHE II]) was not statistically different between the 2 groups (P = .911), implying that the differences in outcomes can be attributed to CDI. Conclusions.  The ICU setting is associated with higher prevalence of CDI. In this setting, CDI is associated with increased hospital mortality and prolonged ICU and overall hospital stay. These findings highlight the need for additional prevention and treatment studies in this setting.

Clostridium difficile infection is the most common hospital-acquired infection. Besides infected patients, carriers have emerged as a key player in C. difficile epidemiology. In this study, we evaluated the impact of identifying and isolating carriers upon hospital admission on the incidence of CDI incidence and hospital-acquired C. difficile colonization, as a single policy and as part of bundle approaches. We simulated C. difficile transmission using a stochastic mathematical approach, considering the contribution of carriers based on published literature. In the baseline scenario, CDI incidence was 6.18/1,000 admissions (95% CI, 5.72-6.65), simulating reported estimates from U.S. hospital discharges. The acquisition rate of C. difficile carriage was 9.72/1,000 admissions (95% CI, 9.15-10.31). Screening and isolation of colonized patients on admission to the hospital decreased CDI incidence to 4.99/1,000 admissions (95% CI, 4.59-5.42; relative reduction (RR) = 19.1%) and led to 36.2% reduction in the rate of hospital-acquired colonization. Simulating an antimicrobial stewardship program reduced CDI rate to 2.35/1,000 admissions (95% CI, 2.07-2.65). In sensitivity analysis, CDI incidence was less than 2.32/1,000 admissions (RR = 62.4%) in 95% of 1,000 simulations. The combined bundle, focusing on reducing C. difficile transmission from colonized patients and the individual risk of these patients to develop CDI, decreased significantly the incidence of both CDI and hospital-acquired colonization. Implementation of this bundle to current practice is expected to have an important impact in containing CDI.

Clinical guidelines play a central role in day-to-day practice. We assessed the degree of incorporation of cost analyses to guidelines and identified modifiable characteristics that could affect the level of incorporation.We selected the 100 most cited guidelines listed on the National Guideline Clearinghouse (http://www.guideline.gov) and determined the number of guidelines that used cost analyses in their reasoning and the overall percentage of incorporation of relevant cost analyses available in PubMed. Differences between medical specialties were also studied. Then, we performed a case-control study using incorporated and not incorporated cost analyses after 1:1 matching by study subject and compared them by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement requirements and other criteria.We found that 57% of guidelines do not use any cost justification. Guidelines incorporate a weighted average of 6.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.3-7.9) among 3396 available cost analyses, with cardiology and infectious diseases guidelines incorporating 10.8% (95% CI 5.3-18.1) and 9.9% (95% CI 3.9- 18.2), respectively, and hematology/oncology and urology guidelines incorporating 4.5% (95% CI 1.6-8.6) and 1.6% (95% CI 0.4-3.5), respectively. Based on the CHEERS requirements, the mean number of items reported by the 148 incorporated cost analyses was 18.6 (SD = 3.7), a small but significant difference over controls (17.8 items; P = 0.02). Included analyses were also more likely to directly relate cost reductions to healthcare outcomes (92.6% vs 81.1%, P = 0.004) and declare the funding source (72.3% vs 53.4%, P < 0.001), while similar number of cases and controls reported a noncommercial funding source (71% vs 72.7%; P = 0.8).Guidelines remain an underused mechanism for the cost-effective allocation of available resources and a minority of practice guidelines incorporates cost analyses utilizing only 6% of the available cost analyses. Fulfilling the CHEERS requirements, directly relating costs with healthcare outcomes and transparently declaring the funding source seem to be valued by guideline-writing committees.

BACKGROUND:Patients on dialysis are particularly vulnerable to meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and MRSA colonization is associated with increased risk for severe infections in this population. AIM/OBJECTIVE:Determination of risk factors for MRSA colonization among dialysis patients. METHODS:This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting risk factors of MRSA colonization. We performed a PubMed and EMBASE literature search to identify all studies on risk factors for MRSA colonization among patients undergoing dialysis treatment. Previous hospitalization, type of dialysis access, comorbid conditions, dialysis vintage, gender, length of time on dialysis, and previous antibiotic use were extracted and assessed for possible association with MRSA colonization in this population. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Ten out of 8252 articles, presenting data on 2364 dialysis patients, were included. We found that hospitalization within the previous 12 months [odds ratio (OR): 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-3.58] and the use of temporary dialysis access (relative risk: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.06-2.60) were associated with a significantly higher risk of MRSA colonization. MRSA carriage was associated with lower serum albumin levels compared to non-carriage (OR: 0.8; 95% CI: 0.68-0.95) and was higher among patients with chronic lung disease (OR: 2.16; 95% CI: 1.04-4.51). There were no data on patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Active surveillance approaches, including potential decolonization strategies, are suggested to focus on these subgroups of haemodialysis patients with hospitalization within the previous year, temporary dialysis access, lower serum albumin levels, and chronic lung disease comorbidity.