Implementation of national blood conservation recommendations at an adult sickle cell center.

BACKGROUND: Due to the national blood supply crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Hematology proposed guidance to decrease blood utilization for sickle cell patients on chronic transfusion therapy (CTT). Little evidence exists to support the efficacy and safety of these blood conservation strategies. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Through retrospective analysis, we sought to describe outcomes following implementation of these recommendations in 58 adult sickle cell patients on chronic exchange transfusions. The strategies employed included: relaxing the goal fraction of cells remaining (FCR) to 30%-50%, utilizing depletion exchanges in select patients, and transitioning select patients to monthly simple transfusions. We compared hemoglobin S%, hemoglobin values, and other laboratory parameters, acute care visits, and red blood cell usage during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to the year prior using Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Of 53 patients who remained on chronic exchanges during the pandemic, use of depletion exchange increased (15%-23%) and FCR increased (34.9 [SD 4.7] vs. 37.6 [SD 4.5], p < .05). These changes resulted in 854 units conserved without clinically significant changes to pre-exchange laboratory parameters, including hemoglobin S%, or number of acute care presentations. In contrast, five patients who transitioned to predominantly simple transfusions, experienced difficulty maintaining hemoglobin S% less than 30 and worsening anemia. DISCUSSION: Our data suggest that in a blood shortage crisis, optimizing the exchange procedure itself may be the safest means of conserving blood in a population of adult patients with sickle cell disease.

Sulopenem: An Intravenous and Oral Penem for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections Due to Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria.

Sulopenem (formerly known as CP-70,429, and CP-65,207 when a component of a racemic mixture with its R isomer) is an intravenous and oral penem that possesses in vitro activity against fluoroquinolone-resistant, extended spectrum ß-lactamases (ESBL)-producing, multidrug-resistant (MDR) Enterobacterales. Sulopenem is being developed to treat patients with uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) as well as intra-abdominal infections. This review will focus mainly on its use in UTIs. The chemical structure of sulopenem shares properties of penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems. Sulopenem is available as an oral prodrug formulation, sulopenem etzadroxil, which is hydrolyzed by intestinal esterases, resulting in active sulopenem. In early studies, the S isomer of CP-65,207, later developed as sulopenem, demonstrated greater absorption, higher drug concentrations in the urine, and increased stability against the renal enzyme dehydropeptidase-1 compared with the R isomer, which set the stage for its further development as a UTI antimicrobial. Sulopenem is active against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive microorganisms. Sulopenem's ß-lactam ring alkylates the serine residues of penicillin-binding protein (PBP), which inhibits peptidoglycan cross-linking. Due to its ionization and low molecular weight, sulopenem passes through outer membrane proteins to reach PBPs of Gram-negative bacteria. While sulopenem activity is unaffected by many ß-lactamases, resistance arises from alterations in PBPs (e.g., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA]), expression of carbapenemases (e.g., carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales and in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), reduction in the expression of outer membrane proteins (e.g., some Klebsiella spp.), and the presence of efflux pumps (e.g., MexAB-OprM in Pseudomonas aeruginosa), or a combination of these mechanisms. In vitro studies have reported that sulopenem demonstrates greater activity than meropenem and ertapenem against Enterococcus faecalis, Listeria monocytogenes, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), and Staphylococcus epidermidis, as well as similar activity to carbapenems against Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes. With some exceptions, sulopenem activity against Gram-negative aerobes was less than ertapenem and meropenem but greater than imipenem. Sulopenem activity against Escherichia coli carrying ESBL, CTX-M, or Amp-C enzymes, or demonstrating MDR phenotypes, as well as against ESBL-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, was nearly identical to ertapenem and meropenem and greater than imipenem. Sulopenem exhibited identical or slightly greater activity than imipenem against many Gram-positive and Gram-negative anaerobes, including Bacteroides fragilis. The pharmacokinetics of intravenous sulopenem appear similar to carbapenems such as imipenem-cilastatin, meropenem, and doripenem. In healthy subjects, reported volumes of distribution (Vd) ranged from 15.8 to 27.6 L, total drug clearances (CLT) of 18.9-24.9 L/h, protein binding of approximately 10%, and elimination half-lives (t½) of 0.88-1.03 h. The estimated renal clearance (CLR) of sulopenem is 8.0-10.6 L/h, with 35.5% ± 6.7% of a 1000 mg dose recovered unchanged in the urine. An ester prodrug, sulopenem etzadroxil, has been developed for oral administration. Initial investigations reported a variable oral bioavailability of 20-34% under fasted conditions, however subsequent work showed that bioavailability is significantly improved by administering sulopenem with food to increase its oral absorption or with probenecid to reduce its renal tubular secretion. Food consumption increases the area under the curve (AUC) of oral sulopenem (500 mg twice daily) by 23.6% when administered alone and 62% when administered with 500 mg of probenecid. Like carbapenems, sulopenem demonstrates bactericidal activity that is associated with the percentage of time that free concentrations exceed the MIC (%f T > MIC). In animal models, bacteriostasis was associated with %f T > MICs ranging from 8.6 to 17%, whereas 2-log10 kill was seen at values ranging from 12 to 28%. No pharmacodynamic targets have been documented for suppression of resistance. Sulopenem concentrations in urine are variable, ranging from 21.8 to 420.0 mg/L (median 84.4 mg/L) in fasted subjects and 28.8 to 609.0 mg/L (median 87.3 mg/L) in those who were fed. Sulopenem has been compared with carbapenems and cephalosporins in guinea pig and murine systemic and lung infection animal models. Studied pathogens included Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, B. fragilis, Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter cloacae, E. coli, K. pneumoniae, Proteus vulgaris, and Serratia marcescens. These studies reported that overall, sulopenem was non-inferior to carbapenems but appeared to be superior to cephalosporins. A phase III clinical trial (SURE-1) reported that sulopenem was not non-inferior to ciprofloxacin in women infected with fluoroquinolone-susceptible pathogens, due to a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in sulopenem-treated patients at the test-of-cure visit. However, the researchers reported superiority of sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid over ciprofloxacin for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs in women infected with fluoroquinolone/non-susceptible pathogens, and non-inferiority in all patients with a positive urine culture. A phase III clinical trial (SURE-2) compared intravenous sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid with ertapenem in the treatment of complicated UTIs. No difference in overall success was noted at the end of therapy. However, intravenous sulopenem followed by oral sulopenem etzadroxil was not non-inferior to ertapenem followed by oral stepdown therapy in overall success at test-of-cure due to a higher rate of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the sulopenem arm. After a meeting with the US FDA, Iterum stated that they are currently evaluating the optimal design for an additional phase III uncomplicated UTI study to be conducted prior to the potential resubmission of the New Drug Application (NDA). It is unclear at this time whether Iterum intends to apply for EMA or Japanese regulatory approval. The safety and tolerability of sulopenem has been reported in various phase I pharmacokinetic studies and phase III clinical trials. Sulopenem (intravenous and oral) appears to be well tolerated in healthy subjects, with and without the coadministration of probenecid, with few serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported to date. Reported TEAEs affecting ≥1% of patients were (from most to least common) diarrhea, nausea, headache, vomiting and dizziness. Discontinuation rates were low and were not different than comparator agents. Sulopenem administered orally and/or intravenously represents a potentially well tolerated and effective option for treating uncomplicated and complicated UTIs, especially in patients with documented or highly suspected antimicrobial pathogens to commonly used agents (e.g. fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli), and in patients with documented microbiological or clinical failure or patients who demonstrate intolerance/adverse effects to first-line agents. This agent will likely be used orally in the outpatient setting, and intravenously followed by oral stepdown in the hospital setting. Sulopenem also allows for oral stepdown therapy in the hospital setting from intravenous non-sulopenem therapy. More clinical data are required to fully assess the clinical efficacy and safety of sulopenem, especially in patients with complicated UTIs caused by resistant pathogens such as ESBL-producing, Amp-C, MDR E. coli. Antimicrobial stewardship programs will need to create guidelines for when this oral and intravenous penem should be used.

Enoxaparin Thromboprophylaxis in Children Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis among pediatric patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. We sought to evaluate safety, dose-finding, and preliminary efficacy of twice-daily enoxaparin as primary thromboprophylaxis among children hospitalized for symptomatic COVID-19, including primary respiratory infection and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC). METHODS: We performed a phase 2, multicenter, prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial of twice-daily enoxaparin (initial dose: 0.5mg/kg per dose; max: 60mg; target anti-Xa activity: 0.20-0.49IU/mL) as primary thromboprophylaxis for children <18 years of age hospitalized for symptomatic COVID-19. Study endpoints included: cumulative incidence of International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis-defined clinically relevant bleeding; enoxaparin dose-requirements; and cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism within 30-days of hospital discharge. Descriptive statistics summarized endpoint estimates that were further evaluated by participant age (±12 years) and clinical presentation. RESULTS: Forty children were enrolled and 38 met analyses criteria. None experienced clinically relevant bleeding. Median (interquartile range) dose to achieve target anti-Xa levels was 0.5 mg/kg (0.48-0.54). Dose-requirement did not differ by age (0.5 [0.46-0.52] mg/kg for age ≥12 years versus 0.52 [0.49-0.55] mg/kg for age <12 years, P = .51) but was greater for participants with MISC (0.52 [0.5-0.61] mg/kg) as compared with primary COVID-19 (0.48 [0.39-0.51] mg/kg, P = .010). Two children (5.3%) developed central-venous catheter-related venous thromboembolism. No serious adverse events were related to trial intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Among children hospitalized for COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with twice-daily enoxaparin appears safe and warrants further investigation to assess efficacy.

TWICE-DAILY ENOXAPARIN AS PRIMARY THROMBOPROPHYLAXIS IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS HOSPITALIZED FOR COVID-19

B Conclusions: b In children hospitalized for COVID-19 related illness, primary TP with subcutaneous enoxaparin twice-daily at a starting dose of 0.5 mg/kg is safe and achieves target anti-Xa levels during hospitalization in >90% of patients. Future phase 3 trials of primary TP are warranted in hospitalized children with proinflammatory conditions such as COVID-19, for which HA-VTE risk is increased. B Introduction: b Evidence is limited on the safety or efficacy of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis (TP) against hospital-associated venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE) in children hospitalized with COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)