SummaryBackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18–45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference −1·4%, 95% CI −7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68–1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3–4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immune responses and infection outcomes were evaluated in 2,686 patients with varying immune-suppressive disease states after administration of two Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Overall, 255 of 2,204 (12%) patients failed to develop anti-spike antibodies, with an additional 600 of 2,204 (27%) patients generating low levels (<380 AU ml−1). Vaccine failure rates were highest in ANCA-associated vasculitis on rituximab (21/29, 72%), hemodialysis on immunosuppressive therapy (6/30, 20%) and solid organ transplant recipients (20/81, 25% and 141/458, 31%). SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were detected in 513 of 580 (88%) patients, with lower T cell magnitude or proportion in hemodialysis, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and liver transplant recipients (versus healthy controls). Humoral responses against Omicron (BA.1) were reduced, although cross-reactive T cell responses were sustained in all participants for whom these data were available. BNT162b2 was associated with higher antibody but lower cellular responses compared to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. We report 474 SARS-CoV-2 infection episodes, including 48 individuals with hospitalization or death from COVID-19. Decreased magnitude of both the serological and the T cell response was associated with severe COVID-19. Overall, we identified clinical phenotypes that may benefit from targeted COVID-19 therapeutic strategies.

Introduction: To investigate the quality of information offered by videos on YouTube™ for those individuals seeking information regarding risks associated with orthodontic treatment. The quality of information was compared the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) patient information leaflet ‘Orthodontic treatment- what are the risks’. Materials and Method: YouTube™ was searched systematically for videos on orthodontic treatment risks using the terms ‘orthodontic risks’ and ‘braces risks’. Videos were selected based on a strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and demographics recorded. Completeness was assessed using a 8-point score based on the BOS patient information leaflet ‘Orthodontic treatment- what are the risks’. Descriptive statistics and statistical analysis using correlation tests were generated. Result: 19.2% videos met the specified criteria with 80.8% videos excluded. Videos varied in regards to completeness with the mean completeness score of 3 and only 13% meeting all criteria. The risk of pain and discomfort was most commonly included orthodontic risk 61%. No statistical significance was found for completeness of the video with viewers interaction (R = 0.2665, P=0.219897) viewing rate (R=0.1138, P=0.617326) or length of video (R=0.0062, P= 0.977601). Conclusion: YouTube™ generally hosts videos with low completeness with regards to orthodontic treatment risks. Therefore, orthodontists should be aware of this resource and caution patients regarding the comprehensiveness of information. In addition to the potentially misleading content which is avail-able within YouTube™ videos

No abstract

No abstract