Systemic levels of cytokines are altered during infection and sepsis. This prospective observational study aimed to investigate whether plasma levels of multiple inflammatory mediators differed between sepsis patients with and those without bacteremia during the initial phase of hospitalization. A total of 80 sepsis patients with proven bacterial infection and no immunosuppression were included in the study. Plasma samples were collected within 24 h of hospitalization, and Luminex® analysis was performed on 35 mediators: 16 cytokines, six growth factors, four adhesion molecules, and nine matrix metalloproteases (MMPs)/tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs). Forty-two patients (52.5%) and 38 (47.5%) patients showed positive and negative blood cultures, respectively. There were significant differences in plasma levels of six soluble mediators between the two “bacteremia” and “non-bacteremia” groups, using Mann–Whitney U test (p < 0.0014): tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), CCL4, E-selectin, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), intracellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), and TIMP-1. Ten soluble mediators also significantly differed in plasma levels between the two groups, with p-values ranging between 0.05 and 0.0014: interleukin (IL)-1ra, IL-10, CCL2, CCL5, CXCL8, CXCL11, hepatocyte growth factor, MMP-8, TIMP-2, and TIMP-4. VCAM-1 showed the most robust results using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Using unsupervised hierarchical clustering, we found that TNFα, CCL4, E-selectin, VCAM-1, ICAM-1, and TIMP-1 could be used to discriminate between patients with and those without bacteremia. Patients with bacteremia were mainly clustered in two separate groups (two upper clusters, 41/42, 98%), with higher levels of the mediators. One (2%) patient with bacteremia was clustered in the lower cluster, which compromised most of the patients without bacteremia (23/38, 61%) (χ2 test, p < 0.0001). Our study showed that analysis of the plasma inflammatory mediator profile could represent a potential strategy for early identification of patients with bacteremia.

Lack of rapid and comprehensive microbiological diagnosis in patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) hampers appropriate antimicrobial therapy. This study evaluates the real-world performance of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia panel plus (FAP plus) and explores the feasibility of evaluation in a randomised controlled trial. Patients presenting to hospital with suspected CAP were recruited in a prospective feasibility study. An induced sputum or an endotracheal aspirate was obtained from all participants. The FAP plus turnaround time (TAT) and microbiological yield were compared with standard diagnostic methods (SDs). 96/104 (92%) enrolled patients had a respiratory tract infection (RTI); 72 CAP and 24 other RTIs. Median TAT was shorter for the FAP plus, compared with in-house PCR (2.6 vs 24.1 h, p < 0.001) and sputum cultures (2.6 vs 57.5 h, p < 0.001). The total microbiological yield by the FAP plus was higher compared to SDs (91% (162/179) vs 55% (99/179), p < 0.0001). Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae and influenza A virus were the most frequent pathogens. In conclusion, molecular panel testing in adults with CAP was associated with a significant reduction in time to actionable results and increased microbiological yield. The impact on antibiotic use and patient outcome should be assessed in randomised controlled trials.

Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) causes a large burden of disease. Due to difficulties in obtaining representative respiratory samples and insensitive standard microbiological methods, the microbiological aetiology of CAP is difficult to ascertain. With a few exceptions, standard-of-care diagnostics are too slow to influence initial decisions on antimicrobial therapy. The management of CAP is therefore largely based on empirical treatment guidelines. Empiric antimicrobial therapy is often initiated in the primary care setting, affecting diagnostic tests based on conventional bacterial culture in hospitalized patients. Implementing rapid molecular testing may improve both the proportion of positive tests and the time it takes to obtain test results. Both measures are important for initiation of pathogen-targeted antibiotics, involving rapid de-escalation or escalation of treatment, which may improve antimicrobial stewardship and potentially patient outcome. Methods Patients presenting to the emergency department of Haukeland University Hospital (HUH) in Bergen, Norway, will be screened for inclusion into a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible patients with a suspicion of CAP will be included and randomised to receive either standard-of-care methods (standard microbiological testing) or standard-of-care methods in addition to testing by the rapid and comprehensive real-time multiplex PCR panel, the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia Panel plus (FAP plus) (bioMérieux S.A., Marcy-l’Etoile, France). The results of the FAP plus will be communicated directly to the treating staff within ~2 h of sampling. Discussion We will examine if rapid use of FAP plus panel in hospitalized patients with suspected CAP can improve both the time to and the proportion of patients receiving pathogen-directed treatment, thereby shortening the exposure to unnecessary antibiotics and the length of hospital admission, compared to the standard-of-care arm. The pragmatic design together with broad inclusion criteria and a straightforward intervention could make our results generalizable to other similar centres. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT04660084. Registered on December 9, 2020

Background The COVID-19 pandemic was met with strict containment measures. We hypothesized that societal infection control measures would impact the number of hospital admissions for respiratory tract infections, as well as, the spectrum of pathogens detected in patients with suspected community acquired pneumonia (CAP). Methods This study is based on aggregated surveillance data from electronic health records of patients admitted to the hospitals in Bergen Hospital Trust from January 2017 through June 2021, as well as, two prospective studies of patients with suspected CAP conducted prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-COVID cohort versus COVID cohort, respectively). In the prospective cohorts, microbiological detections were ascertained by comprehensive PCR-testing in lower respiratory tract specimens. Mann–Whitney’s U test was used to analyse continuous variables. Fisher’s exact test was used for analysing categorical data. The number of admissions before and during the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 was compared using two-sample t-tests on logarithmic transformed values. Results Admissions for respiratory tract infections declined after the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 (p < 0.001). The pre-COVID and the COVID cohorts comprised 96 and 80 patients, respectively. The proportion of viruses detected in the COVID cohort was significantly lower compared with the pre-COVID cohort [21% vs 36%, difference of 14%, 95% CI 4% to 26%; p = 0.012], and the proportion of bacterial- and viral co-detections was less than half in the COVID cohort compared with the pre-COVID cohort (19% vs 45%, difference of 26%, 95% CI 13% to 41%; p < 0.001). The proportion of bacteria detected was similar (p = 0.162), however, a difference in the bacterial spectrum was observed in the two cohorts. Haemophilus influenzae was the most frequent bacterial detection in both cohorts, followed by Streptococcus pneumoniae in the pre-COVID and Staphylococcus aureus in the COVID cohort. Conclusion During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of admissions with pneumonia and the microbiological detections in patients with suspected CAP, differed from the preceding year. This suggests that infection control measures related to COVID-19 restrictions have an overall and specific impact on respiratory tract infections, beyond reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

No abstract