The impact of the updated EORTC/MSG criteria on the classification of hematological patients with suspected invasive pulmonary aspergillosis

ObjectivesOur aim was to evaluate the effect of the updated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and Mycoses Study Group 2019 definitions for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) on patient classification and the related all-cause 12-week mortality.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study from our tertiary care centre, we reclassified patients with haematological malignancy who underwent bronchoalveolar lavage between 2014 and 2019 for suspected IPA using the novel EORTC 2019 criteria. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to define the optimal cut-off for positive PCR and galactomannan and present survival analyses and their possible association with these diagnostic criteria through post hoc comparisons with log rank and Cox regression.ResultsFrom 323 episodes of suspected IPA in 282 patients, 73 were reclassified: 31 (42.5%) from possible to probable IPA, 5 (6.8%) from EORTC criteria not met to probable IPA, and 37 (50.7%) from EORTC criteria not met to possible IPA. Probable IPA increased therefore 11.1% (64/323, 19.8% to 100/323, 30.9%), mostly due to positive PCR (31/36, 86.1%). There was no difference in mortality between newly defined possible and probable IPA (log rank p = 0.950). Mortality was higher in probable cases with lower cycle thresholds (Ct values) versus higher Ct values (p = 0.004). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed an optimal Ct value cut-off of 36.8 with a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI 64.9%–85.1%) and a specificity of 61.7% (95% CI 53.5–69.9) for 12-week mortality.DiscussionThe new EORTC criteria led to 11.1% more probable IPA diagnoses, mostly due to Aspergillus PCR. Restricting positive PCR to below a certain threshold might improve the discrimination of the new EORTC IPA categories for mortality.     

Variability in non-core vaccination rates of dogs and cats in veterinary clinics across the United States

Vaccination guidelines for dogs and cats indicate that core vaccines (for dogs, rabies, distemper, adenovirus, parvovirus; for cats, feline parvovirus, herpes virus-1, calicivirus) are essential to maintain health, and that non-core vaccines be administered according to a clinician’s assessment of a pet’s risk of exposure and susceptibility to infection. A reliance on individual risk assessment introduces the potential for between-practice inconsistencies in non-core vaccine recommendations. A study was initiated to determine non-core vaccination rates of dogs (Leptospira, Borrelia burgdorferi, Bordetella bronchiseptica, canine influenza virus) and cats (feline leukemia virus) in patients current for core vaccines in veterinary practices across the United States. Transactional data for 5,531,866 dogs (1,670 practices) and 1,914,373 cats (1,661 practices) were retrieved from practice management systems for the period November 1, 2016 through January 1, 2020, deidentified and normalized. Non-core vaccination status was evaluated in 2,798,875 dogs and 788,772 cats that were core-vaccine current. Nationally, median clinic vaccination rates for dogs were highest for leptospirosis (70.5%) and B. bronchiseptica (68.7%), and much lower for canine influenza (4.8%). In Lyme-endemic states, the median clinic borreliosis vaccination rate was 51.8%. Feline leukemia median clinic vaccination rates were low for adult cats (34.6%) and for kittens and 1-year old cats (36.8%). Individual clinic vaccination rates ranged from 0 to 100% for leptospirosis, B. bronchiseptica and feline leukemia, 0–96% for canine influenza, and 0–94% for borreliosis. Wide variation in non-core vaccination rates between clinics in similar geographies indicates that factors other than disease risk are driving the use of non-core vaccines in pet dogs and cats, highlighting a need for veterinary practices to address gaps in patient protection. Failure to implement effective non-core vaccination strategies leaves susceptible dogs and cats unprotected against vaccine-preventable diseases.     

Positive Cultures Can Be Safely Ignored in Revision Arthroplasty Patients That Do Not Meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting Criteria

BackgroundDuring aseptic revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA), one or more cultures may occasionally isolate an organism. The hypothesis of this study was that in a portion of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for aseptic failure, culture may isolate an organism(s) that can be left untreated.MethodsAll patients undergoing revision TJA from 2000 to 2017 at two institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized as aseptic if they were appropriately investigated preoperatively and did not meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria. In the aseptic revision cohort, patients with a single positive culture or multiple cultures positive for different organisms (“organism-positive”) and patients who had negative intraoperative cultures (“organism-negative”) were compared based on demographics, comorbidities, operative details, subsequent reoperations, and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).ResultsIn total, 3,234 International Consensus Meeting–negative aseptic revision TJAs were included, of which 215 patients (6.6%) were organism-positive, 196 (91.2%) had a single positive culture, and 19 (8.8%) were positive for 2 or more distinct organisms (ie, polymicrobial). The most prevalent organisms were coagulase-negative Staphylococci (37.5%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (9.6%), and Cutibacterium acnes (8.0%). Demographics and operative details were comparable between the groups. Using multiple regressions there was no association between culture positivity and the rate of reoperation or PJI.ConclusionIsolation of organisms by culture in patients undergoing revision for aseptic failure was not uncommon. As long as these patients were appropriately investigated preoperatively and PJI was excluded, these findings suggest that culture results may be ignored without subjecting patients to additional antimicrobial treatment.     

Fear,mistrust, and vaccine hesitancy: Narratives of the dengue vaccine controversy in the Philippines

This article applies a qualitative approach to the 2017 dengue vaccine controversy involving Sanofi Pasteur’s Dengvaxia to understand vaccine hesitancy and related anxieties in contemporary Philippines. Through a multisited project that investigated the health aspirations and lived experiences of low- and middle-income Filipinos across urban and rural Philippines, this article distills the perspectives of both ordinary community members and health workers in local and national capacities regarding the controversy—and how it altered their perceptions toward vaccines, health care, and government. Our study reveals widespread mistrust and fear in the communities toward both the state and health institutions following the controversy, with frontline health workers bearing the brunt of the communities’ apprehensions, and the media partly responsible in fomenting these fears. Given the repetitive nature of health and vaccine controversies, this article suggests the importance of responsible journalism, well-calibrated crisis communications, and a people-centered health paradigm that involves exploring local contexts of vaccine hesitancy and mining people’s lived experiences in tackling present and future health crises—especially now in the advent of COVID-19 vaccinations.