ObjectivesThe rRT-PCR test, the current gold standard for the detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), presents with known shortcomings, such as long turnaround time, potential shortage of reagents, false-negative rates around 15–20%, and expensive equipment. The hematochemical values of routine blood exams could represent a faster and less expensive alternative.MethodsThree different training data set of hematochemical values from 1,624 patients (52% COVID-19 positive), admitted at San Raphael Hospital (OSR) from February to May 2020, were used for developing machine learning (ML) models: the complete OSR dataset (72 features: complete blood count (CBC), biochemical, coagulation, hemogasanalysis and CO-Oxymetry values, age, sex and specific symptoms at triage) and two sub-datasets (COVID-specific and CBC dataset, 32 and 21 features respectively). 58 cases (50% COVID-19 positive) from another hospital, and 54 negative patients collected in 2018 at OSR, were used for internal-external and external validation.ResultsWe developed five ML models: for the complete OSR dataset, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the algorithms ranged from 0.83 to 0.90; for the COVID-specific dataset from 0.83 to 0.87; and for the CBC dataset from 0.74 to 0.86. The validations also achieved good results: respectively, AUC from 0.75 to 0.78; and specificity from 0.92 to 0.96.ConclusionsML can be applied to blood tests as both an adjunct and alternative method to rRT-PCR for the fast and cost-effective identification of COVID-19-positive patients. This is especially useful in developing countries, or in countries facing an increase in contagions.

The treatment of chronic osteomyelitis often includes surgical debridement and filling the resultant void with antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate cement, bone grafts or bone substitutes. Recently, the use of bioactive glass to treat bone defects in infections has been reported in a limited series of patients. However, no direct comparison between this biomaterial and antibiotic-loaded bone substitute has been performed. In this retrospective study, we compared the safety and efficacy of surgical debridement and local application of the bioactive glass S53P4 in a series of 27 patients affected by chronic osteomyelitis of the long bones (Group A) with two other series, treated respectively with an antibiotic-loaded hydroxyapatite and calcium sulphate compound (Group B; n = 27) or a mixture of tricalcium phosphate and an antibiotic-loaded demineralised bone matrix (Group C; n = 22). Systemic antibiotics were also used in all groups. After comparable periods of follow-up, the control of infection was similar in the three groups. In particular, 25 out of 27 (92.6%) patients of Group A, 24 out of 27 (88.9%) in Group B and 19 out of 22 (86.3%) in Group C showed no infection recurrence at means of 21.8 (12 to 36), 22.1 (12 to 36) and 21.5 (12 to 36) months follow-up, respectively, while Group A showed a reduced wound complication rate. Our results show that patients treated with a bioactive glass without local antibiotics achieved similar eradication of infection and less drainage than those treated with two different antibiotic-loaded calcium-based bone substitutes.

In this study the antibacterial and antifungal properties of propolis, a natural product of bees, have been investigated against different pathogens. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) were determined according to NCCLS standards on 320 strains including Staphylococcus aureus, Group A beta-hemolytic streptococci, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Haemophilus influenzae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans. Time-kill curves were assessed for susceptible microorganisms, testing 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4 x MIC for propolis, by counting viable bacteria after 0, 3, 6, 24 hours and viable yeasts after 0, 3, 6, 24 and 48 hours. Propolis showed good antimicrobial activity against most of the isolates, particularly S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae and M. catarrhalis, but not against Enterobacteriaceae. Time-kill curves demonstrated bacteriostatic rather than bactericidal activity of propolis, the latter being evident only at high concentrations.