Treatment with tocilizumab or corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory state: a multicentre cohort study (SAM-COVID-19)

Objectives: The objective of this study was to estimate the association between tocilizumab or corticosteroids and the risk of intubation or death in patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) with a hyperinflammatory state according to clinical and laboratory parameters. Methods: A cohort study was performed in 60 Spanish hospitals including 778 patients with COVID-19 and clinical and laboratory data indicative of a hyperinflammatory state. Treatment was mainly with tocilizumab, an intermediate-high dose of corticosteroids (IHDC), a pulse dose of corticosteroids (PDC), combination therapy, or no treatment. Primary outcome was intubation or death; follow-up was 21 days. Propensity score-adjusted estimations using Cox regression (logistic regression if needed) were calculated. Propensity scores were used as confounders, matching variables and for the inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs). Results: In all, 88, 117, 78 and 151 patients treated with tocilizumab, IHDC, PDC, and combination therapy, respectively, were compared with 344 untreated patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10 (11.4%), 27 (23.1%), 12 (15.4%), 40 (25.6%) and 69 (21.1%), respectively. The IPTW-based hazard ratios (odds ratio for combination therapy) for the primary endpoint were 0.32 (95%CI 0.22-0.47; p < 0.001) for tocilizumab, 0.82 (0.71-1.30; p 0.82) for IHDC, 0.61 (0.43-0.86; p 0.006) for PDC, and 1.17 (0.86-1.58; p 0.30) for combination therapy. Other applications of the propensity score provided similar results, but were not significant for PDC. Tocilizumab was also associated with lower hazard of death alone in IPTW analysis (0.07; 0.02-0.17; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Tocilizumab might be useful in COVID-19 patients with a hyperinflammatory state and should be prioritized for randomized trials in this situatio

EN-DALBACEN 2.0 Cohort: real-life study of dalbavancin as sequential/consolidation therapy in patients with infective endocarditis due to Gram-positive cocci

Objectives Infective endocarditis (IE) has high mortality and morbidity and requires long hospital stays to deliver the antibiotic treatment recommended in clinical practice guidelines. We aimed to analyse the health outcomes of the use of dalbavancin (DBV) in the consolidation treatment of IEs caused by Gram-positive cocci and to perform a pharmacoeconomic study. Materials and methods This observational, retrospective, Spanish multicentre study in patients with IE who received DBV as part of antibiotic treatment in consolidation phase were followed for at least 12 months. The study was approved by the Provincial Committee of the coordinating centre. Results The study included 124 subjects, 70.2% male, with a mean age of 67.4 years and median Charlson index of 4 (interquartile range: 2.5-6). Criteria for definite IE were met by 91.1%. Coagulase-negative staphylococci (38.8%), Staphylococcus aureus (22.6%), Enterococcus faecalis (19.4%), and Streptococcus Spp. (9.7%) were isolated more frequently, all susceptible to vancomycin. Before DVB administration, 91.2% had undergone surgery; 60.5% had received a second regimen for 24.5 d (16.6-56); and 20.2% had received a third regimen for 14.5 d (12-19.5). DBV was administered to facilitate discharge in 95.2% of cases. At 12 months, the effectiveness was of 95.9%, and there was 0.8% loss to follow-up, 0.8% IE-related death, and 3.2% relapse. Adverse events were recorded in 3.2%. The hospital stay was reduced by 14 d, and there was a mean savings of 5548.57 €/patient vs. conventional treatments. Conclusion DBV is highly effective, safe, and cost-effective as consolidation therapy in patients with IE by Gram-positive cocci, with few adverse events

Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the real use of cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) in the Spanish National Endocarditis Database (GAMES) and to compare it with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP). Methods: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA IE treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Outcomes assessed were relapse; intra-hospital, overall, and endocarditis-related mortality; and adverse events. Risk of renal toxicity with each treatment was evaluated separately. Results: We included 631 IE episodes caused by MSSA treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Antibiotic treatment was cloxacillin, cefazolin, or both in 537 (85%), 57 (9%), and 37 (6%) episodes, respectively. Patients treated with cefazolin had significantly higher rates of comorbidities (median Charlson Index 7, P <0.01) and previous renal failure (57.9%, P <0.01). Patients treated with cloxacillin presented higher rates of septic shock (25%, P = 0.033) and new-onset or worsening renal failure (47.3%, P = 0.024) with significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (38.5%, P = 0.017). One-year IE-related mortality and rate of relapses were similar between treatment groups. None of the treatments were identified as risk or protective factors. Conclusion: Our results suggest that cefazolin is a valuable option for the treatment of MSSA IE, without differences in 1-year mortality or relapses compared with cloxacillin, and might be considered equally effective