Head-to-head comparison of multi-dose oritavancin and dalbavancin for complicated infections: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oritavancin and dalbavancin are long-acting lipoglycopeptide antibiotics approved for the treatment of skin and skin structure infections. Recently, they have been used for outpatient antimicrobial therapy for complicated infections. No head-to-head studies exist for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of patients treated with multiple doses of oritavancin or dalbavancin for complicated infections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort study evaluating adult patients who received two or more doses of lipoglycopeptides for complicated infections from February 2019 through December 2022. Patients receiving oritavancin were compared to dalbavancin after propensity score-matching. The primary endpoint was clinical success at 90 days. Other endpoints included: 30-day re-admission, 30-day mortality, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and changes in white blood cell count and inflammatory markers after the first dose. RESULTS: After exclusions and propensity score-matching, 131 matched pairs (N = 262) were included in the analysis. Most patients were receiving lipoglycopeptide therapy for osteomyelitis. There was no significant difference in clinical success at 90 days in patients who received oritavancin compared to those who received dalbavancin (99 [76%] vs. 103 [79%], respectively; P = 0.556). There was no significant difference in secondary endpoints, however, there was a trend towards higher incidence of ADRs oritavancin compared to dalbavancin (9 [7%] vs. 2 [2%], respectively; P = 0.060) which led to more treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in efficacy between multi-dose oritavancin and dalbavancin for the treatment of complicated infections. Both agents were generally well tolerated; however, dalbavancin may be better tolerated when long-term treatment is warranted.

Dosing and Administration Strategies of Tocilizumab in Patients With COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab may reduce the risk of death, length of stay, and time of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Limited data are available evaluating low-dose subcutaneous administration of tocilizumab in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of 2 tocilizumab dosing and administration strategies in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted to compare clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving tocilizumab 400 mg intravenously (400 mg IV) or 162 mg subcutaneously (162 mg SC). Hospitalized patients receiving a single dose of tocilizumab were eligible for inclusion and grouped by dosing and administration strategy. The primary endpoint was ventilator-free days at day 28. Secondary endpoints included length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, mechanical ventilation required after dose, 28-day readmission, 28-day mortality, and change in inflammatory markers. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients were included, with 147 who received tocilizumab 400 mg IV and 156 who received 162 mg SC. There was no significant difference in average ventilator-free days at day 28 in patients receiving 400 mg IV compared with 162 mg SC (26.4 ± 5.3 vs 25.6 ± 6.8 days, respectively; P = 0.812). There was also no difference in LOS (10.4 ± 12.6 vs 10.5 ± 14.0 days; P = 0.637), ICU LOS (3.9 ± 9.0 vs 3.5 ± 8.3 days; P = 0.679), mechanical ventilation after dose (15.6% vs 19.2%; P = 0.412), 28-day readmission (6.1% vs 9.6%; P = 0.268), or 28-day mortality (23.1% vs 25.6%; P = 0.611). Finally, there was no difference regarding change in inflammatory markers at 48 hours (P > 0.05 for all interactions). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In this retrospective study involving hospitalized patients with COVID-19, there was no difference between tocilizumab 162 mg SC and 400 mg IV in terms of efficacy. The 162 mg SC dose may be a reasonable alternative to traditional doses.

Rhabdomyolysis Suspected to be Caused by Eravacycline Therapy: A Case Report.

Eravacycline is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. It is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic belonging to the tetracycline class with a broad-spectrum of activity and an appealing side effect profile. This report describes a 74-year-old female who presented to the hospital with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) requiring coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After surgery, she developed a sternal wound infection that grew multidrug resistant organisms, leading to a much longer than anticipated hospital stay. Eravacycline was eventually added to the antimicrobial regimen for the persistent infection. Shortly after therapy with eravacycline began, the patient started experiencing muscle pain and the creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level was noted to be elevated. Other causes, such as concomitant administration of an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, were explored in this case but not thought to be the cause of rhabdomyolysis. The patient's CPK dropped considerably upon discontinuation of the novel antibiotic, and symptoms resolved. The adverse drug event was reported to the drug manufacturer; however, there are no reports up until this time that address a possible relationship between eravacycline administration and the development of rhabdomyolysis.

Effect of microbiology comment nudging on antibiotic use in asymptomatic bacteriuria: A before-and-after quasi-experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the effect of a microbiology comment nudge on antibiotic use for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB). DESIGN: Single-center, before-and-after, quasi-experimental study. SETTING: Community-based, public, not-for-profit teaching hospital in the southeastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients with a positive urine culture and the absence of urinary tract infection signs and symptoms. INTERVENTION: Implementation of a microbiology comment nudge on urine cultures. RESULTS: In total, 204 patients were included in the study. Antibiotics were less likely to be continued beyond 72 hours in the postimplementation group: 57 (55%) of 104 versus 38 (38%) of 100 (P = .016). They were less likely to have antibiotics continued beyond 48 hours: 60 (58%) of 104 versus 43 (43%) of 100 (P = .036). They were also less likely to have antibiotics prescribed at discharge 35 (34%) of 104 versus 20 (20%) of 100 (P = .028). In addition, they had fewer total antibiotic days of therapy: 4 (IQR, 1-6) versus 1 (IQR, 0-6) (P = .022). CONCLUSION: Microbiology comment nudging may contribute to less antibiotic utilization in patients with ASB.