BNT162b2 vaccine uptake and effectiveness in UK healthcare workers - a single centre cohort study.

In this single centre cohort study we assessed BNT162B2 vaccine uptake and effectiveness among UK healthcare workers (HCWs) during a time of high community COVID-19 prevalence. Early uptake among HCWs was 62.3% (1409/2260), however there were significant differences in uptake between age groups, ethnic origins, and job roles. Uptake increased to 72.9% after a vaccine hesitancy working group implemented specific measures. In the 42 days after vaccination, 49 new cases of COVID-19 were identified, of which 7 (14.3%) occurred in HCWs who were beyond 10 days of vaccination. Kaplan-Meier curves for partially vaccinated and unvaccinated groups were congruent until day 14 and continued to diverge up to 42 days. Cox regression analysis showed a 70.0% (95%CI 6.0-91.0; p=0.04) risk reduction for COVID-19 infection in partially vaccinated HCWs. Here we report early vaccination rates among HCWs are generally high although uptake is lower in certain groups. It is possible to improve vaccine uptake and efforts should focus on this, however, significant resource is required. The BNT162B2 vaccine is effective from 14 days post-vaccination in a frontline clinical setting and protection continues beyond 21 days post 1st dose without a 2nd dose, being given.

Clinical Experience of Implementing Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics (OVIVA) in a Specialist Orthopedic Hospital.

BACKGROUND: The Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics (OVIVA) Trial demonstrated that oral therapy, when used during the initial 6 weeks in the treatment in bone and joint infection (BJI), is noninferior to intravenous therapy. To date there are no reports describing reproducibility of these findings in a real-world setting. METHODS: We studied all patients diagnosed with BJI at our hospital 12 months pre- and postimplementation of the OVIVA trial findings into clinical practice. An infection consultant recommended antibiotic treatment and patients were followed up by an outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) service. Prospective data from a local registry was used to analyze baseline clinical details, outcome, length of hospital stay (LOS), and costs. RESULTS: A cohort of 328 patients (145 pre- and 183 postimplementation) was analyzed. Postimplementation, 66.1% of patients were switched to a suitable oral antibiotic regimen. Definite failure at 1 year was 13.6% in the preimplementation group and 18.6% in the postimplementation group (P = .154). Postimplementation, definite failure was more common in patients requiring intravenous antibiotics due to lack of suitable oral options (intravenous, 26.7% and oral, 14.3%). Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) requiring closer monitoring or change to treatment were more common postimplementation (21.0% and 37.1%, respectively). ADR-related hospital readmissions were similar in both groups (2.1 and 2.2%). Comparing both groups, the postimplementation group showed a reduction of 4 days in the median LOS and a median cost reduction of £2764.28 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The OVIVA trial findings can be safely implemented into clinical practice when patients on oral antibiotics are followed up by an established OPAT service. Two-thirds of patients were switched to a suitable oral antibiotic regimen. Implementation led to reductions in hospital LOS and antibiotic costs.

Dalbavancin to Treat Infected Massive Endoprostheses: A Case Report and Cost Comparison Analysis.

We report a case of an infected massive endoprosthetic replacement treated successfully with 2 stage surgery and off-label dalbavancin. Dalbavancin was used due to a limited number of antimicrobial options that could be administered safely in an outpatient setting and to avoid the need for daily dosing.

Teicoplanin anaphylaxis associated with surgical prophylaxis.

AIMS: The aim of this paper is to determine the rate of true anaphylaxis to teicoplanin. METHODS: A case-series including all suspected anaphylactic reactions attributed to teicoplanin anaphylaxis within a single institution over a 29-month period were categorised according to the probability of true IgE-mediated anaphylaxis using previously published criteria. The number of patients who received teicoplanin was determined and used to calculate the rate of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Approximately 18 800-19 600 patients received teicoplanin during the study period, during which there were 14 cases of suspected anaphylaxis attributed to the administration of teicoplanin: five were categorised as definite IgE-mediated anaphylaxis, four as probable, two as uncertain and three were excluded. Of the excluded cases, two were found to have positive intradermal skin testing to alternative agents (rocuronium and chlorhexidine), and one did not meet the published clinical criteria. We therefore calculated the rate of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis to be between 0.046% and 0.059% (equating to between 1:2088 and 1:1655). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to calculate a rate of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis to teicoplanin in clinical practice. Our case series suggests that these life-threatening reactions occur less commonly than reported by the manufacturers. Mast cell tryptase is unreliable when used to predict the likelihood of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis to teicoplanin.