Cefiderocol and Sulbactam-Durlobactam against Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

Infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) remain a clinical challenge due to limited treatment options. Recently, cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin, and sulbactam-durlobactam, a bactericidal β-lactam–β-lactamase inhibitor combination, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of A. baumannii infections. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms of action of and resistance to cefiderocol and sulbactam-durlobactam, the antimicrobial susceptibility of A. baumannii isolates to these drugs, as well as the clinical effectiveness of cefiderocol and sulbactam/durlobactam-based regimens against CRAB. Overall, cefiderocol and sulbactam-durlobactam show an excellent antimicrobial activity against CRAB. The review of clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of cefiderocol therapy against CRAB indicates it is non-inferior to colistin/other treatments for CRAB infections, with a better safety profile. Combination treatment is not associated with improved outcomes compared to monotherapy. Higher mortality rates are often associated with prior patient comorbidities and the severity of the underlying infection. Regarding sulbactam-durlobactam, current data from the pivotal clinical trial and case reports suggest this antibiotic combination could be a valuable option in critically ill patients affected by CRAB infections, in particular where no other antibiotic appears to be effective

Evidence-Based Treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections: A Critical Reappraisal

Multidrug-resistant (MDR)/extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa is emerging as a major threat related to adverse patient outcomes. The goal of this review is to describe evidence-based empiric and targeted treatment regimens that can be exploited when dealing with suspected or confirmed infections due to MDR/XDR P. aeruginosa. P. aeruginosa has inherent resistance to many drug classes, the capacity to form biofilms, and most importantly, the ability to quickly acquire resistance to ongoing treatments. Based on the presence of risk factors for MDR/XDR infections and local epidemiology, where large proportions of strains are resistant to classic beta-lactams, the recommended empirical treatment for suspected P. aeruginosa infections is based on ceftolozane-tazobactam or ceftazidime-avibactam. Where local epidemiology indicates low rates of MDR/XDR and there are no risk factors, a third or fourth generation cephalosporin can be used in the context of a “carbapenem-sparing” strategy. Whenever feasible, antibiotic de-escalation is recommended after antimicrobial susceptibility tests suggest that it is appropriate, and de-escalation is based on different resistance mechanisms. Cefiderocol and imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam withstand most resistance mechanisms and may remain active in cases with resistance to other new antibiotics. Confronting the growing threat of MDR/XDR P. aeruginosa, treatment choices should be wise, sparing newer antibiotics when dealing with a suspected/confirmed susceptible P. aeruginosa strain and choosing the right option for MDR/XDR P. aeruginosa based on specific types and resistance mechanisms

Effect of immunosuppression maintenance in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of continuing immune suppressive therapy in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data on 202 SOTR with COVID-19, published as case reports or case series. We extracted clinical, hemato-chemical, imaging, treatment, and outcome data. Results: Most patients were kidney recipients (61.9%), males (68.8%), with median age of 57 years. The majority was on tacrolimus (73.5%) and mycophenolate (65.8%). Mortality was 18.8%, but an equal proportion was still hospitalized at last follow up. Immune suppressive therapy was withheld in 77.2% of patients, either partially or completely. Tacrolimus was continued in 50%. One third of survivors that continued immunosuppressants were on dual therapy plus steroids. None of those who continued immunosuppressants developed critical COVID-19 disease. Age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1-1.11, P =.001) and lopinavir/ritonavir use (OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.2-8.5, P =.013) were independent predictors of mortality while immunosuppression maintenance (OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.008-0.558, P =.012) and tacrolimus continuation (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7, P =.013) were independent predictors of survival. Conclusions: Our data suggest that maintaining immune suppression might be safe in SOTR with moderate and severe COVID-19. Specifically, receiving tacrolimus could be beneficial for COVID-19 SOTR. Because of the quality of the available evidence, no definitive guidance on how to manage SOTR with COVID-19 can be derived from our data

Clinical results with the use of ceftaroline and ceftobiprole: real-life experience in a tertiary care hospital

Introduction: Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole show activity against resistant Gram-positive cocci as well as good tolerability and are increasingly used in diverse infections. No comparative data on the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline and ceftobiprole in real-life are available. Methods: In this single-centre, observational, retrospective clinical study, the outcomes of patients treated with ceftaroline or ceftobiprole in our hospital were compared, assessing clinical data, use and drug exposure of study antibiotics, and outcomes. Results: A total of 138 patients were included in this study, including 75 treated with ceftaroline and 63 treated with ceftobiprole. Patients treated with ceftobiprole had more comorbidities [median Charlson comorbidity index 5 (4–7) vs. 4 (2–6) for ceftaroline; P = 0.003], a higher prevalence of multiple site infections (P < 0.001) and were more often treated empirically (P = 0.004), whilst ceftaroline was more frequently used in patients with healthcare-related infections. No differences were observed in terms of hospital mortality, length of stay, and rates of clinical cure, improvement or failure. The only independent predictor of outcome was Staphylococcus aureus infection. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Conclusion: In our real-life experience, ceftaroline and ceftobiprole, applied in different clinical scenarios, were comparable in terms of clinical efficacy and tolerability in a range of severe infections with variable aetiology and different levels of clinical severity. We believe our data may support the clinician in choosing the best option for each therapeutic setting

Prognostic Value of Decreased High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels in Infective Endocarditis

(1) Background: Simple parameters to be used as early predictors of prognosis in infective endocarditis (IE) are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic role of high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and also of total-cholesterol (TC), low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and triglycerides, in relation to clinical features and mortality, in IE. (2) Methods: Retrospective analysis of observational data from 127 consecutive patients with a definite diagnosis of IE between 2016 and 2019. Clinical, laboratory and echocardiography data, mortality, and co-morbidities were analyzed in relation to HDL-C and lipid profile. (3) Results: Lower HDL-C levels (p = 0.035) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. HDL-C levels were also significantly lower in IE patients with embolic events (p = 0.036). Based on ROC curve analysis, a cut-off value was identified for HDL-C equal to 24.5 mg/dL for in-hospital mortality. HDL-C values below this cut-off were associated with higher triglyceride counts (p = 0.008), higher prevalence of S. aureus etiology (p = 0.046) and a higher in-hospital mortality rate (p = 0.004). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed higher 90-day mortality in patients with HDL-C ≤ 24.5 mg/dL (p = 0.001). (4) Conclusions: Low HDL-C levels could be used as an easy and low-cost marker of severity in IE, particularly to predict complications, in-hospital and 90-day mortality

Clinical significance and prognostic value of hemostasis parameters in 337 patients with acute infective endocarditis

(1) Background: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical significance and prognostic role of the main hemostasis parameters in infective endocarditis (IE): prothrombin time as international normalized ratio (PT-INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), fibrinogen, D-dimers, platelet count, homocysteine. (2) Methods: We studied 337 patients with IE. Clinical, hemato-chemical and echocardiography parameters were analyzed. Coagulation parameters were measured on admission. (3) Results: D-dimers levels (p = 0.012) and a prolonged PT-INR (p = 0.013) were associated with higher in-hospital mortality, while prolonged aPTT (p = 0.021) was associated with increased 1-year mortality. Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) infection (p = 0.003), prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) (p = 0.001), surgical indication (p = 0.002) and higher D-dimer levels (p = 0.005) were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. PVE (p = 0.001), a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.049), surgical indication (p = 0.001) and prolonged aPTT (p = 0.012) were independent pre-dictors of 1-year mortality. Higher levels of D-dimers (p < 0.001) and a shorter aPTT (p < 0.001) were associated with embolic complications of IE. S. aureus etiology was bound to higher D-dimers levels (p <0.001) and a shorter aPTT (p = 0.006). (4) Conclusions: Elevated D-dimers are associated with a higher risk for in-hospital mortality in IE patients. High D-dimers and a short aPTT are associated with a higher risk for embolic events in IE. A longer aPTT is associated with 1-year mortality

Risk factors and outcome of multidrug-resistant infections after heart transplant: A contemporary single center experience

(1) Background: The aim of this study was to assess risk factors for multidrug-resistant/ext-ensively drug-resistant (MDR/XDR) bacterial infections in heart transplant (HT) patients within three months after surgery and its impact on patient outcome. (2) Methods: Retrospective analysis of clinical, hemato-chemical, imaging, treatment and outcome data from 47 heart transplant recipients from January 2016 to December 2018. MDR/XDR infections were compared to non-MDR/XDR and noninfected patients. (3) Results: Most participants were males, median age 51 years: 35 (74.5%) developed an infection after HT; 14 (29.8%) were MDR/XDR infections. Prolonged hospital stay before HT correlated to MDR/XDR infection (p < 0.001). Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score at sampling day was higher in MDR/XDR (p = 0.027). MDR/XDR were mostly blood-stream (BSI) (p = 0.043) and skin-soft tissue (SSTI) (p = 0.047) infections. Gram-negative infections were the most frequent, specifically carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antibiotic therapy duration for MDR/XDR infections was longer (p = 0.057), eradication rate lower (p = 0.083) and hospital stay longer (p = 0.005) but not associated with a worse outcome. (4) Conclusions: MDR/XDR infections affect compromised HT recipients with a history of prolonged hospitalization, causing a lower rate of eradication and increased hospital stay. These frequently present as BSI and SSTI. We emphasize the need to prevent contamination of central venous catheters and the surgical site

Enterococcal infective endocarditis is a marker of current occult or future incident colorectal neoplasia

Background: : Few studies suggest an association between Enterococcal infective endocarditis (EIE) and colorectal disease, including colorectal neoplasia (CRN) and colorectal cancer (CRC). In this study, we analyze differences in prevalence, risk factors and outcome of CRN and CRC between EIE and Streptococcus gallolyticus infective endocarditis (SGIE). Methods: : Single center, observational study of 166 patients with definite EIE or SGIE. Clinical data were collected prospectively in a standardized IE protocol. Colonoscopy data were collected retrospectively on 90 patients. Results: : 85 patients had EIE, 81 SGIE. EIE patients had a higher rate of prior cancer (20% vs 6%) and health-care associated infection (12% vs 1%), but similar mortality than SGIE. Colonoscopy performed in 90 patients showed intestinal diseases in 30 of 42 (71%) EIE patients vs. 40 of 48 (83%) SGIE patients (p = 0.174), with a predominance of CRN. Among 78 patients who underwent colonoscopy after IE diagnosis, no difference between EIE and SGIE was observed in the rate of non-neoplastic lesions (48% vs 47%), benign (32% vs 40%) or malignant (13% vs 15%) neoplastic lesions. Adverse events during colonoscopy were uncommon, although a careful handling of anticoagulation was required. Conclusions: : EIE seems to be associated with colorectal disease, including colorectal neoplasia and colorectal cancer, to the same extent as SGIE. EIE should be considered a marker of colorectal neoplasia, even in patients with a clear health-care related acquisition. Colonoscopy is generally safe in EIE patients, and should be considered to early diagnose and treat colorectal disease

CEFTO-CURE study: CEFTObiprole Clinical Use in Real-lifE – a multi-centre experience in Italy

Background: Ceftobiprole is approved in Europe for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in adults. Real-world data are limited. Methods: This multi-centre, observational, ambispective investigator-initiated study was undertaken in Italy from January 2018 to December 2019 in order to evaluate the use of ceftobiprole in a real-world setting. Results: Overall, 195 patients from 10 centres were evaluated (68% retrospectively). Male sex was prevalent (n=121, 62%). Median age was 67 [interquartile range (IQR) 53–75] years. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 5 (IQR 3–7). The most common indication was pneumonia (151/195, 77%), especially HAP. Other uses were skin and soft tissue infections (5%), endocarditis (4%) and bone infections (4%). Ceftobiprole was usually an empiric choice (65%), in combination with other drugs (66%) and as second-line therapy (58%). A causative agent was found in 39% of cases. A diagnosis of sepsis was made in 59 cases (30%). Success in the clinically evaluable population (excluding 12 cases due to isolation of pathogens outside ceftobiprole's spectrum of activity) was obtained in 79% of cases, with all-cause mortality of 20%. On multi-level analysis, three predictors were positively associated with clinical success: male gender, pneumonia and detection of causal agent. Sepsis was a negative predictor. Nine factors were independently associated, favourably or unfavourably, with fatal outcome. Conclusions: Ceftobiprole is a safe and effective therapeutic choice, even in a real-world setting. More data are needed to establish its efficacy in patients with sepsis