Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is prevalent worldwide and is associated with dramatic levels of morbidity and mortality. Isolated anti-HBc (IAHBc) is a particular serological pattern that is commonly found in immunocompromised patients. There is ongoing debate regarding the management of patients with IAHBc. Herein, we summarize the current guidelines and the newest evidence. The frequency of IAHBc is variable, with a higher prevalence in some populations, such as persons living with HIV and others immunocompromised patients. The risk of HBV reactivation depends on host factors (including immunosuppression) and viral factors. It is now well established that immunocompromised patients can be classified into three groups for risk according to the type of immunosuppression and/or treatment. In patients at high risk, HBV therapy has to be considered systematically. In patients at moderate risk, the decision is based on the level of HBV DNA (preemptive treatment or monitoring and vaccination). In patients with low risk, HBV vaccination is another possible approach, although further studies are needed to assess the type of preemptive strategy.

Debate continues regarding the usefulness and benefits of wide prescription of antibiotics in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). All patients hospitalized in the Infectious Diseases Department, Dijon University Hospital, Dijon, France between 27 February and 30 April 2020 with confirmed COVID-19 were included in this study. Clinical, biological and radiological data were collected, as well as treatment and outcome data. An unfavourable outcome was defined as death or transfer to the intensive care unit. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients who did and did not receive antibiotic therapy using propensity score matching. Among the 222 patients included, 174 (78%) received antibiotic therapy. The univariate analysis showed that patients who received antibiotic therapy were significantly older, frailer and had more severe presentation at admission compared with patients who did not receive antibiotic therapy. Unfavourable outcomes were more common in patients who received antibiotic therapy [hazard ratio (HR) 2.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07–8.11; P = 0.04]. Multi-variate analysis and propensity score matching indicated that antibiotic therapy was not significantly associated with outcome (HR 1.612, 95% CI 0.562–4.629; P = 0.37). Antibiotics were frequently prescribed in this study and this was associated with more severe presentation at admission. However, antibiotic therapy was not associated with outcome, even after adjustment. In line with recent publications, such data support the need to streamline antibiotic therapy in patients with COVID-19.

Nocardiosis, a bacterial opportunistic infection caused by Nocardia spp, has recently been reported in patients with anti–granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) autoantibodies, but insufficient data are available about disease presentation, outcomes, and occurrence of autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (aPAP) in this population. We performed a prospective, multicenter, nationwide study in France and included patients with a Nocardia infection who had anti-GM-CSF autoantibodies. We describe their clinical, microbiological, and radiological characteristics, and their outcome at 1 year of follow-up. Twenty patients (18 [90%] male) were included, with a median age of 69 (interquartile range, 44–75) years. The organs most frequently involved were the brain (14/20 [70%]) and the lung (12/20 [60%]). Half of the infections were disseminated (10/20 [50%]). Nocardia identification was predominantly made in abscess fluid (17/20 [85%]), among which 10 (59%) were brain abscesses. The 1-year all-cause mortality was 5% (1/20), and only 1 case of aPAP (1/20 [5%]) occurred during the follow-up period. Nocardiosis with anti-GM-CSF autoantibodies is associated with a low mortality rate despite a high incidence of brain involvement. Although the occurrence of aPAP was infrequent during the 1-year follow-up period, long-term clinical data are needed to fully understand the potential relationship between nocardiosis, anti-GM-CSF autoantibodies, and aPAP.

Since December 2019, many drugs have been evaluated or advocated as potential treatments of SARS-CoV-2 induced disease (COVID-19), including many repositioned drugs and some others specifically developed for these diseases. They can be roughly classified into three categories according to their main mechanism of action (passive immunization, direct antivirals, and anti-inflammatory treatments), and their use depends on the stage of the disease. Despite often promising preclinical data, most of the treatments evaluated failed to show a significant clinical benefit. In addition, a few others have seen their effectiveness affected by the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and sub-variants. Herein, the aim of this article is to take stock of the data available as of the 14th of July 2022, concerning the specific healing options evaluated for patients suffering from COVID-19. We focus particularly on healing treatments of COVID-19 and do not deal with preventive treatments such as vaccine. Associated therapies such as venous thromboembolism prophylaxis are not detailed since they are covered in a specific chapter of this issue. Passive immunization, especially through monoclonal antibodies, showed a positive impact on the clinical evolution, whether in outpatients or inpatients without oxygen supply. However, their effectiveness strongly depends on the type of SARS-CoV-2 variant, and often decreases or even vanishes with the most recent variants. Among direct antiviral treatments, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir appears to currently be the cornerstone in the management of early infections, but its use may be limited by drug interactions. Remdesivir remains as an alternative in this situation, even though it is potentially less convenient. Anti-inflammatory treatments have often been shown to be the most effective in inpatients with oxygen supply. Dexamethasone is now a cornerstone of management of these patients. Added tocilizumab seems beneficial in the case of hyper inflammation. JAK inhibitors and anakinra have also gained an interest in some studies. As a conclusion of this narrative review, the best treatment strategy has yet to be defined and is likely to evolve in the future, not only because many other drugs are still under development and evaluation, but also because of the viral epidemics and epidemiology evolution.

Among 15 strains of Listeria monocytogenes tested, a synergy between amoxicillin and ceftriaxone was observed in 14 (93%) according to minimal inhibitory concentration strips and 12 (80%) per the checkerboard methods, as well as for 2 of the 3 strains tested by the time-killing curve. This association may be an alternative treatment for listeriosis in the future.