Treatment options for multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii strains (MDR-AB) are limited. Minocycline has been used alone or in combination in the treatment of infections associated with AB. A systematic review of the clinical use of minocycline in nosocomial infections associated with MDR-AB was performed according to the PRISMA-P guidelines. PubMed-Medline, Scopus and Web of Science ^TM databases were searched from their inception until March 2019. Additional Google Scholar free searches were performed. Out of 2990 articles, 10 clinical studies (9 retrospective case series and 1 prospective single center trial) met the eligibility criteria. In total, 223 out of 268 (83.2%) evaluated patients received a minocycline-based regimen; and 200 out of 218 (91.7%) patients with available data received minocycline as part of a combination antimicrobial regimen (most frequently colistin or carbapenems). Pneumonia was the most common infection type in the 268 cases (80.6% with 50.4% ventilator-associated pneumonia). The clinical and microbiological success rates following minocycline treatment were 72.6% and 60.2%, respectively. Mortality was 20.9% among 167 patients with relevant data. In this systematic review, minocycline demonstrated promising activity against MDR-AB isolates. This review sets the ground for further studies exploring the role of minocycline in the treatment of MDR-AB associated infections.

Since its first description in 2009, Candida auris has, so far, resulted in large hospital outbreaks worldwide and is considered an emerging global public health threat. Exceptionally for yeast, it is gifted with a profoundly worrying invasive potential and high inter-patient transmissibility. At the same time, it is capable of colonizing and persisting in both patients and hospital settings for prolonged periods of time, thus creating a vicious cycle of acquisition, spreading, and infection. It exhibits various virulence qualities and thermotolerance, osmotolerance, filamentation, biofilm formation and hydrolytic enzyme production, which are mainly implicated in its pathogenesis. Owing to its unfavorable profile of resistance to diverse antifungal agents and the lack of effective treatment options, the implementation of robust infection prevention and control (IPC) practices is crucial for controlling and minimizing intra-hospital transmission of C. auris. Rapid and accurate microbiological identification, adherence to hand hygiene, use of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), proper handling of catheters and implantable devices, contact isolation, periodical environmental decontamination, targeted screening, implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs and communication between healthcare facilities about residents’ C. auris colonization status are recognized as coherent strategies for preventing its spread. Current knowledge on C. auris epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and its mechanisms of pathogenicity are summarized in the present review and a comprehensive overview of IPC practices ensuring yeast prevention is also provided.

Since the pandemic’s onset, a growing population of individuals has recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection and its long-term effects in some of the convalescents are gradually being reported. Although the precise etiopathogenesis of post-acute COVID-19 sequelae (PACS) remains elusive, the mainly accepted rationale is that SARS-CoV-2 exerts long-lasting immunomodulatory effects, promotes chronic low-grade inflammation, and causes irreversible tissue damage. So far, several viruses have been causally linked to human oncogenesis, whereas chronic inflammation and immune escape are thought to be the leading oncogenic mechanisms. Excessive cytokine release, impaired T-cell responses, aberrant activation of regulatory signaling pathways (e.g., JAK-STAT, MAPK, NF-kB), and tissue damage, hallmarks of COVID-19 disease course, are also present in the tumor microenvironment. Therefore, the intersection of COVID-19 and cancer is partially recognized and the long-term effects of the virus on oncogenesis and cancer progression have not been explored yet. Herein, we present an up-to-date review of the current literature regarding COVID-19 and cancer cross-talk, as well as the oncogenic pathways stimulated by SARS-CoV-2.

Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been associated with a survival benefit and is strongly recommended. However, the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/EMBASE) of studies comparing high (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard (prophylactic dose) intensity of thrombo-prophylaxis with regard to outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was performed. Randomized and non-randomized studies that provided adjusted effect size estimates were included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies comparing intermediate versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 5 observational, n = 2009, weighted age 61 years, males 61%, ICU 53%) revealed a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) for death at 0.56 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.34, 0.92) in favor of the intermediate dose. For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 0.84 (95% CI 0.54, 1.31), and for major bleeding events was 1.63 (95% CI 0.79, 3.37). Meta-analysis of 17 studies comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 15 observational, n = 7776, weighted age 64 years, males 54%, ICU 21%) revealed a pooled adjusted RR for death at 0.73 (95% CI 0.47, 1.14) for the therapeutic dose. An opposite trend was observed in the unadjusted analysis of 15 observational studies (RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.88, 1.74)). For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 1.13 (95% CI 0.52, 2.48), and for major bleeding events 3.32 (95% CI 2.51, 4.40). In conclusion, intermediate compared with standard prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis appears to be rather safe and is associated with additional survival benefit, although most data are derived from observational retrospective analyses. Randomized studies are needed to define the optimal thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a relatively rare but potentially life-threatening disease characterized by substantial mortality and long-term sequelae among the survivors. In recent decades, a dramatic change in the profile of patients diagnosed with IE has been observed primarily in developed countries, most likely due to an aging population and a recent increase in invasive medical procedures. Nowadays, the typical IE patient is usually older, with complex comorbidities, and a history significant for cardiac disease, including degenerative heart valve disease, prosthetic valves, or cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Moreover, as patient risk factors change, predisposing them to more healthcare-associated IE, the microbiology of IE is also shifting; there are growing concerns regarding the rise in the incidence of IE caused by difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) bacteria in at-risk patients with frequent healthcare contact. The present review aims to explore the evolving landscape of IE and summarize the current knowledge on novel diagnostics to ensure timely diagnosis and outline optimal therapy for DTR bacterial IE.

Greece is a country with limited spread of SARS-CoV-2 and cumulative infection attack rate of 0.12% (95%CI 0.06%-0.26%). Health care workers (HCWs) are a well-recognized risk group for COVID-19. The study aimed to estimate the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in two hospitals and assess potential risk factors. Hospital-1 was involved in the care of COVID-19 patients while hospital-2 was not. A validated, rapid, IgM/IgG antibody point-of care test was used. 1,495 individuals consented to participate (response rate 77%). The anti-SARS-CoV-2 weighted prevalence was 1.07% (95%CI 0.37-1.78) overall and 0.44% (95%CI 0.12-1.13) and 2.4% (95%CI 0.51-8.19) in hospital-1 and hospital-2, respectively. The overall, hospital-1, and hospital-2 seroprevalence was 9, 3 and 20 times higher than the estimated infection attack rate in general population, respectively. Suboptimal use of personal protective equipment was noted in both hospitals. These data have implications for the preparedness of a second wave of COVID-19 epidemic.