| 1. |
- De Greef, Julien, et al.
(author)
-
Risk factors for Nocardia infection among allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients : A case-control study of the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
- 2024
-
In: Journal of Infection. - : Elsevier. - 0163-4453 .- 1532-2742. ; 88:6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- ObjectivesNocardiosis is a rare but life-threatening infection after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). We aimed at identifying risk factors for nocardiosis after allogeneic HCT and clarifying the effect of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis on its occurrence.MethodsWe performed a retrospective multicenter case-control study of patients diagnosed with nocardiosis after allogeneic HCT between January 2000 and December 2018. For each case, two controls were matched by center, transplant date, and age group. Multivariable analysis was conducted using conditional logistic regression to identify potential risk factors for nocardiosis. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of cases and controls were compared using log-rank tests.ResultsSixty-four cases and 128 controls were included. Nocardiosis occurred at a median of 9 months after allogeneic HCT (interquartile range: 5–18). After adjustment for potential confounders in a multivariable model, Nocardia infection was associated with tacrolimus use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 9.9, 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: 1.6–62.7), lymphocyte count < 500/µL (aOR 8.9, 95 % CI: 2.3–34.7), male sex (aOR 8.1, 95 % CI: 2.1–31.5), recent use of systemic corticosteroids (aOR 7.9, 95 % CI: 2.2–28.2), and recent CMV infection (aOR 4.3, 95 % CI: 1.2–15.9). Conversely, use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis was associated with a significantly decreased risk of nocardiosis (aOR 0.2, 95 % CI: 0.1–0.8). HCT recipients who developed nocardiosis had a significantly decreased survival, as compared with controls (12-month survival: 58 % and 90 %, respectively; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsWe identified six factors independently associated with the occurrence of nocardiosis among allogeneic HCT recipients. In particular, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis was found to protect against nocardiosis.
|
|
| 2. |
- Engert, Andreas, et al.
(author)
-
The European Hematology Association Roadmap for European Hematology Research : a consensus document
- 2016
-
In: Haematologica. - Pavia, Italy : Ferrata Storti Foundation (Haematologica). - 0390-6078 .- 1592-8721. ; 101:2, s. 115-208
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The European Hematology Association (EHA) Roadmap for European Hematology Research highlights major achievements in diagnosis and treatment of blood disorders and identifies the greatest unmet clinical and scientific needs in those areas to enable better funded, more focused European hematology research. Initiated by the EHA, around 300 experts contributed to the consensus document, which will help European policy makers, research funders, research organizations, researchers, and patient groups make better informed decisions on hematology research. It also aims to raise public awareness of the burden of blood disorders on European society, which purely in economic terms is estimated at (sic)23 billion per year, a level of cost that is not matched in current European hematology research funding. In recent decades, hematology research has improved our fundamental understanding of the biology of blood disorders, and has improved diagnostics and treatments, sometimes in revolutionary ways. This progress highlights the potential of focused basic research programs such as this EHA Roadmap. The EHA Roadmap identifies nine 'sections' in hematology: normal hematopoiesis, malignant lymphoid and myeloid diseases, anemias and related diseases, platelet disorders, blood coagulation and hemostatic disorders, transfusion medicine, infections in hematology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These sections span 60 smaller groups of diseases or disorders. The EHA Roadmap identifies priorities and needs across the field of hematology, including those to develop targeted therapies based on genomic profiling and chemical biology, to eradicate minimal residual malignant disease, and to develop cellular immunotherapies, combination treatments, gene therapies, hematopoietic stem cell treatments, and treatments that are better tolerated by elderly patients.
|
|
| 3. |
- Morel, Chantal M., et al.
(author)
-
A one health framework to estimate the cost of antimicrobial resistance
- 2020
-
In: Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2047-2994. ; 9:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives/purpose: The costs attributable to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) remain theoretical and largely unspecified. Current figures fail to capture the full health and economic burden caused by AMR across human, animal, and environmental health; historically many studies have considered only direct costs associated with human infection from a hospital perspective, primarily from high-income countries. The Global Antimicrobial Resistance Platform for ONE-Burden Estimates (GAP-ONeuro) network has developed a framework to help guide AMR costing exercises in any part of the world as a first step towards more comprehensive analyses for comparing AMR interventions at the local level as well as more harmonized analyses for quantifying the full economic burden attributable to AMR at the global level.Methods: GAP-ONeuro (funded under the JPIAMR 8th call (Virtual Research Institute) is composed of 19 international networks and institutions active in the field of AMR. For this project, the Network operated by means of Delphi rounds, teleconferences and face-to-face meetings. The resulting costing framework takes a bottom-up approach to incorporate all relevant costs imposed by an AMR bacterial microbe in a patient, in an animal, or in the environment up through to the societal level.Results: The framework itemizes the epidemiological data as well as the direct and indirect cost components needed to build a realistic cost picture for AMR. While the framework lists a large number of relevant pathogens for which this framework could be used to explore the costs, the framework is sufficiently generic to facilitate the costing of other resistant pathogens, including those of other aetiologies.Conclusion: In order to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses to choose amongst different AMR-related interventions at local level, the costing of AMR should be done according to local epidemiological priorities and local health service norms. Yet the use of a common framework across settings allows for the results of such studies to contribute to cumulative estimates that can serve as the basis of broader policy decisions at the international level such as how to steer R&D funding and how to prioritize AMR amongst other issues. Indeed, it is only by building a realistic cost picture that we can make informed decisions on how best to tackle major health threats.
|
|
