ABSTRACT
During Covid-19 pandemic most hospitals have restricted in-person delivery of non-essential healthcare services, including genetic testing delivery, to slow the spread of the virus. Our Onco-Genetic Service also faced this challenging period and had to re-organize its clinical practice with the use of tele-health. Aim of the present paper is to understand whether and how Covid-19-related changes in medical practice influenced patients' satisfaction about the health service provided. 125 BRCA1/2 non carriers (109/125, 87.2% female and 16/125, 12.8% male) in Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II" of Bari were enrolled. All participants were asked to choose whether they prefer in-person or remote post-test counselling session. Basing on patients' choice, two groups of subjects were composed. One week after the post-test counselling session, participants were phone called and asked to complete: a socio-demographic form, a brief structured interview about their Covid-19 related worries and their satisfaction with the health service provided, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Fear of Covid-19 scale. Qualitative information about patients' choice were also collected. No significant difference about patients' satisfaction with the health service provided emerged between groups. Patients who preferred remote post-test counselling had higher anxiety, worries and fear-of Covid-19 than the others. All remote-counselling subjects preferred tele-genetics because of Covid-19 security, would choose it again and would recommend it to others. Cancer tele-genetics offers good guarantees of comfort and efficacy, but patients' choices are related to personal and psychological variables. The use of tele-genetics has to be a patient's choice.
ABSTRACT
Cefiderocol is a new cephalosporin displaying against extensively resistant (XDR) Gram-negative bacteria. We report our experience with cefiderocol-based combination therapies as "rescue" treatments in immunocompromised or critically ill patients or in patients with post-surgical infections who had failed previous regimens. A total of 13 patients were treated from 1 September 2020 to 31 March 2021. In total, 5/13 (38%) patients were classified as critically ill, due to severe COVID-19 lung failure; 4/13 (31%) patients had post-surgical infections and 4/13 (31%) had severe infections in immunocompromised subjects due to solid organ transplantation (2/4) or hematological malignancy (2/4). Overall, 10/13 infections were caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, one by KPC-positive ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant Klebsiella pneumonia and two by Pseudomonas aeruginosa XDR. Based on clinical, microbiological and hematobiochemical evaluation, cefiderocol was associated with different companion drugs, particularly with fosfomycin, high-dose tigecycline and/or colistin. Microbiological eradication was achieved in all cases and the 30-day survival rate was 10/13; two patients died due to SARS-CoV-2 lung failure, whereas one death was attributed to subsequent infections. No recurrent infections within 30 days were reported. Finally, we hereby discuss the therapeutic potential of cefiderocol and the possible place in the therapy of this novel drug.