ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Although dalbavancin is currently approved for the treatment of ABSSIs, several studies suggest its efficacy and tolerance as long-term therapy for other off-label indications requiring prolonged intravenous antibiotic administration. METHODS: We conducted a prospective nationwide study of dalbavancin use in real-life settings for both approved and off-label indications analysing for each case the clinical and microbiological characteristics of infection the efficacy and safety of treatments. RESULTS: During the study period (from December 2018 to July 2021), the ID specialists from 14 different centres enrolled 223 patients treated with dalbavancin [141 males (63%) and 82 females (37%); male/female ratio 1.72; mean age 59 (SD 17.2) years, (range 15-96). Most patients in the study population (136/223; 61.0%) came from community rather than health care facilities and most of them were visited in Infectious Diseases wards (93/223; 41.7%) and clinics (55/223; 24.7%) even though some patients were cured in other settings, such as surgery wards (18/223; 8.1%), orthopaedic wards (11/223; 4.9%), Emergency Rooms (7/223; 3.1%) and non-surgical other than ID wards (6/223; 2.7%). The most common ID diagnoses were osteomyelitis (44 cases/223; 19.7%; of which 29 acute and 15 chronic osteomyelitis), cellulitis (28/223; 12.5%), cutaneous abscess (23/223; 10.3%), orthopaedic prosthesis-associated infection (22/223; 9.9%), surgical site infection (20/223; 9.0%) and septic arthritis (15/223; 6.7%). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, by virtue of its PK/PD properties, dalbavancin represents a valuable option to daily in-hospital intravenous or outpatient antimicrobial regimens also for off-label indications requiring a long-term treatment of Gram-positive infections.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Italian Society of Infectious and Tropical Diseases performed a survey on the application of guidelines for the management of persons living with HIV (PLWH), to evaluate current practice and the yield of screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in newly-diagnosed PLWH; in addition, the offer of preventive therapy to LTBI individuals and the completion rate were analysed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Newly-diagnosed PLWH in nine centres were evaluated retrospectively (2016/2017) using binary and multinomial logistic regression to identify factors associated with LTBI diagnostic screening and QuantiFERON (QFT) results. RESULTS: Of 801 patients evaluated, 774 were studied after excluding active TB. LTBI tests were performed in 65.5%. Prescription of an LTBI test was associated with being foreign-born (odds ratio (OR) 3.19, p < 0.001), older (for 10-year increments, OR 1.22, p = 0.034), and having a CD4 count <100 cells/mm3 vs ≥500 cells/mm3 (OR 2.30, p = 0.044). LTBI was diagnosed in 6.5% of 495 patients evaluated by QFT. Positive results were associated with being foreign-born (relative risk ratio (RRR) 30.82, p < 0.001), older (for 10-year increments, RRR 1.78, p = 0.003), and having a high CD4 count (for 100 cells/mm3 increments, RRR 1.26, p < 0.003). Sixteen LTBI individuals started TB preventive therapy and eight completed it. CONCLUSIONS: LTBI screening is inconsistently performed in newly-diagnosed PLWH. Furthermore, TB preventive therapy is not offered to all LTBI individuals and compliance is poor.
