Catheter-related bloodstream infections: predictive factors for Gram-negative bacteria aetiology and 30 day mortality in a multicentre prospective cohort

PROBAC REIPI/GEIH-SEIMC/SAEI.[Background] Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) increase morbidity and mortality, prolong hospitalization and generate considerable medical costs. Recent guidelines for CRBSI recommend empirical therapy against Gram-positive bacteria (GPB) and restrict coverage for Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) only to specific circumstances.[Objectives]To investigate predictors of GNB aetiology in CRBSI and to assess the predictors of outcome in patients with CRBSI.[Methods] Patients with CRBSI were selected from the PROBAC cohort, a prospective, observational, multicentre national cohort study including patients with bloodstream infections consecutively admitted to 26 Spanish hospitals in a 6 month period (October 2016–March 2017). Outcome variables were GNB aetiology and 30 day mortality. Adjusted analyses were performed by logistic regression.[Results] Six hundred and thirty-one episodes of CRBSI were included in the study. Risk factors independently related to GNB aetiology were central venous catheter (CVC) [OR 1.60 (95% CI: 1.05–2.44), P = 0.028], sepsis/septic shock [OR: 1.76 (95% CI: 1.11–2.80), P = 0.016], antibiotic therapy in the previous 30 days [OR: 1.56 (95% CI: 1.02–2.36), P = 0.037], neutropenia <500/μL [OR: 2.01 (95% CI: 1.04–3.87), P = 0.037] and peripheral vascular disease [OR: 2.04 (95% CI: 1.13–3.68), P = 0.018]. GNB were not associated with increased mortality in adjusted analysis, while removal of catheter [OR: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.09–0.61), P = 0.002] and adequate empirical treatment [OR: 0.37 (95% CI: 0.18–0.77), P = 0.008] were strong protective factors.[Conclusions] Our study reinforces the recommendation that empirical coverage should cover GNB in patients presenting with sepsis/septic shock and in neutropenic patients. Catheter removal and adequate empirical treatment were both protective factors against mortality in patients with CRBSI.This study was funded by Plan Nacional de I+D+i 2013–2016 and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, through the following grants: Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD16/0016/0001; RD16/0016/0007; RD16/0016/0008; RD16/0016/0012), co-financed by European Development Regional Fund ‘A way to achieve Europe’, Operative Program Intelligent Growth 2014–2020, and PI16/01432. F. Caló enjoyed an ESCMID Observership grant at Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena to develop this research

Compatibility of prolonged infusion antibiotics during Y-site administration

[Background] Antimicrobial resistance is a threat to global public health. The use of prolonged infusions in the hospital setting for certain antimicrobials is widely increasing in order to improve their efficacy and safety, including resistance development. Due to limited vascular access, it is important to clarify whether they can be infused through the same line with other drugs during Y-site administration.[Aim] The aim of this review is to update and summarize the evidence on Y-site compatibility of antibacterial agents administered as prolonged infusions in intensive care units (ICUs). Study Design A literature review of PubMed, EMBASE and Trissel's Handbook on Injectable Drugs databases was conducted on the compatibility of selected antimicrobials administered simultaneously at a Y-site connection with parenteral nutrition and other widely used drugs in ICUs. All articles published up to October 30, 2021, in English or Spanish were included, regardless of the type of publication (original articles, case reports, letters, etc.). Eligible antimicrobials were those that can be administered as prolonged infusions: ceftazidime, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem, ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftaroline, cloxacillin, ceftobiprole, vancomycin and fosfomycin.[Results] A total of 1302 drug-to-drug potential combinations were explored, 196 (15.05%) were found to be incompatible, and in 541 (41.55%), data were not available. The results were presented in a simple 2-dimensional consultation chart as a quick reference for health care professionals.[Conclusions] This review provides useful and reliable information on the compatibility of antimicrobials administered as Y-site infusion with other drugs commonly used in the critical setting. This review contributes to patient safety in nursing practice. Relevance to Clinical Practice To our knowledge, this is the first review on Y-site compatibility of antimicrobials used as prolonged infusions with other commonly used drugs, including anti-emetics, analgesics and anti-epileptic and parenteral nutrition. The results of the current review need to be addressed to promote the knowledge sharing between health professionals and improve the quality and safety of patients. We believe that this review may serve as a simple and effective 2-dimensional updated drug-to-drug compatibility reference chart for critical care nurses.Peer reviewe

Quasiexperimental intervention study protocol to optimise the use of new antibiotics in Spain: the NEW_SAFE project

[Introduction] Ceftaroline, tedizolid, dalbavancin, ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam are novel antibiotics used to treat infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens (MDR). Their use should be supervised and monitored as part of an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP). Appropriate use of the new antibiotics will be improved by including consensual indications for their use in local antibiotic guidelines, together with educational interventions providing advice to prescribers to ensure that the recommendations are clearly understood.[Methods and analysis] This study will be implemented in two phases. First, a preliminary historical cohort (2017–2019) of patients from 13 Andalusian hospitals treated with novel antibiotics will be analysed. Second, a quasiexperimental intervention study will be developed with an interrupted time-series analysis (2020–2021). The intervention will consist of an educational interview between prescribers and ASP leaders at each hospital to reinforce the proper use of novel antibiotics. The educational intervention will be based on a consensus guideline designed and disseminated by leaders after the retrospective cohort data have been analysed. The outcomes will be acceptance of the intervention and appropriateness of prescription. Incidence of infection and colonisation with MDR organisms as well as incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection will also be analysed. Changes in prescription quality between periods and the safety profile of the antibiotics in terms of mortality rate and readmissions will also be measured.[Ethics and dissemination] Ethical approval will be obtained from the Andalusian Coordinating Institutional Review Board. The study is being conducted in compliance with the protocol and regulatory requirements consistent with International Council of Harmonisation E6 Good Clinical Practice and the ethical principles of the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences.[Trial registration number] NCT03941951; Pre-results.The study is funded by the Consejería de Salud, Junta de Andalucía, grant PI-0077-2018. The investigators also receive funds for research from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD16/0016/0001) through the Plan Nacional de I+D+ i 2013‐2016, cofinanced by European Development Regional Fund “A way to achieve Europe”, Operative program Intelligent Growth 2014‐2020

Ten Issues for Updating in Community-Acquired Pneumonia: An Expert Review

Community-acquired pneumonia represents the third-highest cause of mortality in industrialized countries and the first due to infection. Although guidelines for the approach to this infection model are widely implemented in international health schemes, information continually emerges that generates controversy or requires updating its management. This paper reviews the most important issues in the approach to this process, such as an aetiologic update using new molecular platforms or imaging techniques, including the diagnostic stewardship in different clinical settings. It also reviews both the Intensive Care Unit admission criteria and those of clinical stability to discharge. An update in antibiotic, in oxygen, or steroidal therapy is presented. It also analyzes the management out-of-hospital in CAP requiring hospitalization, the main factors for readmission, and an approach to therapeutic failure or rescue. Finally, the main strategies for prevention and vaccination in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised hosts are reviewed

Programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en hospitales: guía de recomendaciones de expertos para actividades en poblaciones específicas, síndromes y otros aspectos (PROA-2) de la SEIMC, SEFH, SEMPSPGS, SEMICYUC y SEIP

[EN] In 2012, The Spanish Societies of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC), Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH), and Preventive Medicine, Public Health and Healthcare Management (SEMPSGS) lead a consensus document including recommendations for the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs (AMSP; PROA in Spanish) in acute care hospitals in Spain. While these recommendations were critical for the development of these programs in many centres, there is a need for guidance in the development of AMS activities for specific patient populations, syndromes or other specific aspects which were not included in the previous document or have developed significantly since then. The objective of this expert recommendation guidance document is to review the available information about these activities in these patient populations or circumstances, and to provide guidance recommendations about them. With this objective the SEIMC, SEFH, SEMPSPGS, the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine (SEMICYUC) and the Spanish Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (SEIP) selected a panel of experts who chose the different aspects to include in the document. Because of the lack of high-level evidence in the implementation of the activities, the panel opted to perform a narrative review of the literature for the different topics for which recommendations were agreed by consensus. The document was open to public consultation for the members of these societies for their comments and suggestions, which were reviewed and considered by the panel.[ES] En 2012, las Sociedades Españolas de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (SEIMC), Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y Medicina Preventiva, Salud Pública y Gestión Sanitaria (SEMPSPGS) lideraron un documento de consenso que incluía recomendaciones para la implementación de Programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) en hospitales de agudos en España. Si bien estas recomendaciones fueron críticas para el desarrollo de estos programas en muchos centros, actualmente es necesario establecer unas guías para la implementación de las actividades de los PROA en determinadas poblaciones de pacientes, síndromes clínicos y otros aspectos específicos que no se incluyeron en el documento previo o que desde entonces se han desarrollado significativamente. El objetivo de esta guía de recomendaciones de expertos es revisar la información disponible acerca de esas actividades en estas poblaciones o circunstancias de pacientes y proporcionar unas recomendaciones que sirvan de guía sobre ellas. Con este objetivo, la SEIMC, la SEFH y la SEMPSPGS, así como la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC) y la Sociedad Española de Infectología Pediátrica (SEIP), seleccionaron un panel de expertos que eligieron los diferentes aspectos a incluir en el documento. Debido a la ausencia de evidencia de alto nivel en la implementación de las diferentes actividades, el panel optó por realizar una revisión narrativa de la literatura de los diferentes aspectos, en los que las recomendaciones se acordaron por consenso. El documento se abrió para consulta pública a los miembros de estas sociedades para sus comentarios y sugerencias, que fueron revisadas y consideradas por el panel.Peer reviewe

Effectiveness of fosfomycin trometamol as oral step-down therapy for bacteraemic urinary tract infections due to MDR Escherichia coli: a post hoc analysis of the FOREST randomized trial

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.[Background] Fosfomycin is a potentially attractive option as step-down therapy for bacteraemic urinary tract infections (BUTI), but available data are scarce. Our objective was to compare the effectiveness and safety of fosfomycin trometamol and other oral drugs as step-down therapy in patients with BUTI due to MDR Escherichia coli (MDR-Ec).[Methods] Participants in the FOREST trial (comparing IV fosfomycin with ceftriaxone or meropenem for BUTI caused by MDR-Ec in 22 Spanish hospitals from June 2014 to December 2018) who were stepped-down to oral fosfomycin (3 g q48h) or other drugs were included. The primary endpoint was clinical and microbiological cure (CMC) 5–7 days after finalization of treatment. A multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression to estimate the association of oral step-down with fosfomycin with CMC adjusted for confounders.[Results] Overall, 61 patients switched to oral fosfomycin trometamol and 47 to other drugs (cefuroxime axetil, 28; amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, 7 each; ciprofloxacin, 5) were included. CMC was reached by 48/61 patients (78.7%) treated with fosfomycin trometamol and 38/47 (80.9%) with other drugs (difference, −2.2; 95% CI: −17.5 to 13.1; P = 0.38). Subgroup analyses provided similar results. Relapses occurred in 9/61 (15.0%) and 2/47 (4.3%) of patients, respectively (P = 0.03). The adjusted OR for CMC was 1.11 (95% CI: 0.42–3.29, P = 0.75). No relevant differences in adverse events were seen.[Conclusions] Fosfomycin trometamol might be a reasonable option as step-down therapy in patients with BUTI due to MDR-Ec but the higher rate of relapses would need further assessment.This work was supported by Plan Nacional de I + D + i 2013–2016, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, co-funded by European Development Regional Fund ‘A way to achieve Europe’, Operative Program Intelligence Growth 2014–2020, via the following grants: PI 13/01282; CIBERINFEC (CB21/13/00002; 00006; 00009; 00012; 00049; 00054; 00068; 00084; 00099); and Spanish Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Platform (SCReN, PT17/0017/0012).Peer reviewe

Effectiveness of Fosfomycin for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli Bacteremic Urinary Tract Infections

IMPORTANCE The consumption of broad-spectrum drugs has increased as a consequence of the spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Escherichia coli. Finding alternatives for these infections is critical, for which some neglected drugs may be an option. OBJECTIVE To determine whether fosfomycin is noninferior to ceftriaxone or meropenem in the targeted treatment of bacteremic urinary tract infections (bUTIs) due to MDR E coli. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open clinical trial was conducted at 22 Spanish hospitals from June 2014 to December 2018. Eligible participants were adult patients with bacteremic urinary tract infections due to MDR E coli; 161 of 1578 screened patients were randomized and followed up for 60 days. Data were analyzed in May 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1 to 1 to receive intravenous fosfomycin disodium at 4 g every 6 hours (70 participants) or a comparator (ceftriaxone or meropenem if resistant; 73 participants) with the option to switch to oral fosfomycin trometamol for the fosfomycin group or an active oral drug or pa renteral ertapenem for the comparator group after 4 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was clinical and microbiological cure (CMC) 5 to 7 days after finalization of treatment; a noninferiority margin of 7% was considered. RESULTS Among 143 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (median [IQR] age, 72 [62-81] years; 73 [51.0%] women), 48 of 70 patients (68.6%) treated with fosfomycin and 57 of 73 patients (78.1%) treated with comparators reached CMC (risk difference, -9.4 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI, -21.5 to infinity percentage points; P = .10). While clinical or microbiological failure occurred among 10 patients (14.3%) treated with fosfomycin and 14 patients (19.7%) treated with comparators (risk difference, -5.4 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI. -infinity to 4.9; percentage points; P = .19), an increased rate of adverse event-related discontinuations occurred with fosfomycin vs comparators (6 discontinuations [8.5%] vs 0 discontinuations; P = .006). In an exploratory analysis among a subset of 38 patients who underwent rectal colonization studies, patients treated with fosfomycin acquired a new ceftriaxone-resistant or meropenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria at a decreased rate compared with patients treated with comparators (0 of 21 patients vs 4 of 17 patients [23.5%]; 1-sided P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that fosfomycin did not demonstrate noninferiority to comparators as targeted treatment of bUTI from MDR E coli; this was due to an increased rate of adverse event-related discontinuations. This finding suggests that fosfomycin may be considered for selected patients with these infections

Global overview of the management of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (CHOLECOVID study)

Background: This study provides a global overview of the management of patients with acute cholecystitis during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: CHOLECOVID is an international, multicentre, observational comparative study of patients admitted to hospital with acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on management were collected for a 2-month study interval coincident with the WHO declaration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and compared with an equivalent pre-pandemic time interval. Mediation analysis examined the influence of SARS-COV-2 infection on 30-day mortality. Results: This study collected data on 9783 patients with acute cholecystitis admitted to 247 hospitals across the world. The pandemic was associated with reduced availability of surgical workforce and operating facilities globally, a significant shift to worse severity of disease, and increased use of conservative management. There was a reduction (both absolute and proportionate) in the number of patients undergoing cholecystectomy from 3095 patients (56.2 per cent) pre-pandemic to 1998 patients (46.2 per cent) during the pandemic but there was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality after cholecystectomy comparing the pre-pandemic interval with the pandemic (13 patients (0.4 per cent) pre-pandemic to 13 patients (0.6 per cent) pandemic; P = 0.355). In mediation analysis, an admission with acute cholecystitis during the pandemic was associated with a non-significant increased risk of death (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 0.93 to 1.79, P = 0.121). Conclusion: CHOLECOVID provides a unique overview of the treatment of patients with cholecystitis across the globe during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The study highlights the need for system resilience in retention of elective surgical activity. Cholecystectomy was associated with a low risk of mortality and deferral of treatment results in an increase in avoidable morbidity that represents the non-COVID cost of this pandemic

Autoantibodies against type I IFNs in patients with critical influenza pneumonia

In an international cohort of 279 patients with hypoxemic influenza pneumonia, we identified 13 patients (4.6%) with autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-alpha and/or -omega, which were previously reported to underlie 15% cases of life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia and one third of severe adverse reactions to live-attenuated yellow fever vaccine. Autoantibodies neutralizing type I interferons (IFNs) can underlie critical COVID-19 pneumonia and yellow fever vaccine disease. We report here on 13 patients harboring autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-alpha 2 alone (five patients) or with IFN-omega (eight patients) from a cohort of 279 patients (4.7%) aged 6-73 yr with critical influenza pneumonia. Nine and four patients had antibodies neutralizing high and low concentrations, respectively, of IFN-alpha 2, and six and two patients had antibodies neutralizing high and low concentrations, respectively, of IFN-omega. The patients' autoantibodies increased influenza A virus replication in both A549 cells and reconstituted human airway epithelia. The prevalence of these antibodies was significantly higher than that in the general population for patients 70 yr of age (3.1 vs. 4.4%, P = 0.68). The risk of critical influenza was highest in patients with antibodies neutralizing high concentrations of both IFN-alpha 2 and IFN-omega (OR = 11.7, P = 1.3 x 10(-5)), especially those <70 yr old (OR = 139.9, P = 3.1 x 10(-10)). We also identified 10 patients in additional influenza patient cohorts. Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs account for similar to 5% of cases of life-threatening influenza pneumonia in patients <70 yr old

Epidemiology and clinical features of community-acquired, healthcare-associated and nosocomial bloodstream infections in tertiary-care and community hospitals

Classification of bloodstream infections (BSIs) as community-acquired (CA), healthcare-associated (HCA) and hospital-acquired (HA) has been proposed. The epidemiology and clinical features of BSI according to that classification in tertiary-care (TH) and community (CH) hospitals were investigated in a prospective cohort of 821 BSI episodes from 15 hospitals (ten TH and five CH hospitals) in Andalucía, Spain. Eighteen percent were CA, 24% were HCA and 58% were HA. The incidence of CA and HCA BSI was higher in CH than in TH (CA: 3.9 episodes per 1000 admissions vs. 2.2, p <0.01; HCA: 5.0 vs. 2.9, p <0.01), whereas the incidence of HA BSI was lower (7.7 vs. 8.7, p <0.01). In CA and HCA BSI, the respiratory tract was more frequently the source in CH than in TH (CA: 30% vs. 15%; HCA: 20% vs. 9%, p ≤0.03). In HCA BSI, chronic renal insufficiency and tunnelled catheters were less frequent in CH than in TH (11% vs. 26% and 7% vs. 19%, p ≤0.03), although chronic ulcers were more frequent (22% vs. 8%, p 0.008). BSIs as a result of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa were very rare in CA episodes, although extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (ESBLEC) caused a similar proportion of all BSIs in CA, HCA and HA episodes. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant difference in mortality rates in CH and TH. HCA infections should be considered as a separate class of BSI in both TH and CH, although differences between hospitals must be considered. CA BSIs were not caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens, except for ESBLEC.Consejeria de Salud, Junta de Andalucia 0063/2006Consejeria de Salud, Junta de Andalucia PI0048/2008FIS PI070190Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FEDERMinisterio de Sanidad y ConsumoSpanish Network for the Research in Infectious Diseases REIPI RD06/000