[Appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital]. / Adecuación de las prescripciones antimicrobianas realizadas en el área de urgencias de un hospital de tercer nivel.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotics are widely prescribed in the Emergency Department (ED), representing 26-62% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions. Around 40% of antibiotic prescriptions in hospitalized patients are inappropriate or unnecessary. The aim of the study was to assess the appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions according to local empirical antibiotic treatment guidelines, in the ED of a tertiary hospital. METHODS: Observational, retrospective study including patients attending the ED in November 2016, with an antibiotic prescription, excluding those from residents. RESULTS: A total of 676 patients were included, 57.1% women, mean age 47.4 ± 21.2 years. Patient's diagnoses were 27.2% urinary tract infections (UTI), 24.1% lower respiratory tract infections, 15.4% skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), 13.8% upper respiratory tract infections, 11.8% oral infections, 2.7% genital/sexually transmitted infections, 1.6% gastrointestinal infections, 0.3% ocular infections and 3.1% other. The most prescribed antibiotic families were: 44.1% penicillins, 21.3% fluoroquinolones. The most prescribed antibiotics were: fosfomycin trometamol in UTI (32.1%), levofloxacin in lower respiratory tract (46.2%) and amoxicillin/clavulanate in oral infections (71.6%), SSTI (62.5%) and upper respiratory tract (46.6%). In 56.8% (384) of the prescriptions antibiotics were indicated. An appropriated antibiotic was selected in 62% (238) of the prescriptions. Appropriated dosage and duration were selected in 82.8% (197) and 45.4% (108) of the prescriptions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriateness of antibiotic prescriptions was low, mainly due to an overuse of antibiotics when not indicated, broad spectrum and incorrect treatment duration. These data reinforce the need to enhance adherence to local empirical antibiotic treatment guidelines by developing an antimicrobial stewardship program in the ED.

Interferon-free treatments in patients with hepatitis C genotype 3 infection in a tertiary hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis C virus genotype 3 represents a unique entity within HCV treatment and multiple studies have documented that HCV genotype 3 infection is associated with more rapid disease progression than other genotypes, resulting in increased risk of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and all-cause mortality. In the current study, we further evaluated the real-world effectiveness of 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir ± ribavirin (LDV/SOF ± RBV) and sofosbuvir + daclatasvir (SOF + DCV) for treatment-naive or treatment-experienced patients infected with HCV genotype 3, with or without cirrhosis. METHODS: Retrospective and observational study carried out in a third level hospital. Study period: April 2015 to January 2016. Inclusion criteria: Patients with HCV genotype-3 infection treated either with LDV/SOF ± RBV or with SOF + DCV during study period treated for 12 weeks. The patients that were treated during 24 weeks were excluded and those treated with peg-interferon. The main endpoint measured was the sustained virologic response (SVR) at 12 weeks (SVR12) and the secondary endpoint was SVR at 24 weeks (SVR24). RESULTS: During the study period, 603 patients were treated in our hospital: 71 with genotype 3. We included 46 patients who were treated with LDV/SOF ± RBV or SOF + DCV for 12 weeks. A 43.75% (7/16) of all patients treated with LDV/SOF achieved SVR12, 90% (9/10) of the patients treated with LDV/SOF+RBV achieved SVR12 and 95% (19/20) of the patients treated with SOF+DCV achieved SVR12. There was statistically significant difference (p=0.001) between LDV/SOF respect to SOF+DCV and between LDV/SOF with regard to LDV/SOF +RBV (p=0.018) used to treat HCV genotype 3 infection. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, in our cohort of patients, the combination of SOF + DCV followed by LDV/SOF + RBV 12 weeks were the most effective in patients with HCV genotype 3 and with cirrhosis (SVR12 90% and 80%, respectively) and in those without cirrhosis (SVR12 100% in both combinations). All patients who achieved SVR12 also achieved SVR24, regardless of the regimen received.

[Darunavir/cobicistat monotherapy. Experience in a tertiary hospital]. / Monoterapia con darunavir/cobicistat. Experiencia en un hospital de tercer nivel.

OBJECTIVE: Ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (IP/r) monotherapy: darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy is only provided in the major treatment guidelines in pretreated patients to prevent toxicity associated with nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI), reduce costs and simplify antiretroviral treatment. To start IP/r monotherapy, according to GESIDA guidelines 2016, patients need to meet the following criteria: absence of chronic hepatitis B, plasma viral load <50 copies/ mL for at least 6 months and absence of protease inhibitors mutations or previous virologic failures to IP/r. Currently, there are no studies that evaluate the efficacy and safety of darunavir/cobicistat (DRV/COBI) monotherapy. METHODS: This prospective study analyzed pretreated HIV patients with DRV/r monotherapy that were switched to DRV/COBI monotherapy. The aim of the study is to describe the effectiveness and safety of the DRV/COBI monotherapy. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were evaluated. Patients had a median of 31.29 months of DRV/r monotherapy before DRV/COBI monotherapy. Nine of the 78 patients developed "blips" (plasma viral load: 50-200 copies/ml) and four patients had plasma viral load ≥200 copies/mL. An 83.3% (65/78) of the patients remained with undetectable plasma viral load. As for safety, there were no significant differences in lipid profile, liver function (transaminases) and renal function between DRV/r and DRV/COBI monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: DRV/COBI monotherapy seems to be effective and safe (lipid profile, liver and kidney function). However, it will be necessary to design specific studies comparing DRV/r vs DRV/COBI monotherapy to confirm these results.