Clinical outcomes of baloxavir versus oseltamivir in patients hospitalized with influenza A.

OBJECTIVES: To date, clinical trials evaluating baloxavir have excluded patients hospitalized with influenza infection and therefore this study sought to evaluate the efficacy of baloxavir in inpatients with influenza A. METHODS: This study was a multicentre, retrospective chart review of adult patients admitted to the hospital within the Yale New Haven Health System who received oseltamivir or baloxavir for the treatment of influenza A. Patients were screened for inclusion between January 2018 and April 2018 in the oseltamivir group, while patients in the baloxavir group were screened for inclusion between January 2019 and April 2019. Influenza A diagnosis was confirmed by RT-PCR using a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. RESULTS: Of the 2392 patients assessed, 790 met the inclusion criteria. There were 359 patients who received baloxavir and 431 patients who received oseltamivir. Patients who received baloxavir were younger compared with those who received oseltamivir [median = 69 (IQR = 57-81) years versus 77 (IQR = 62-86) years; P < 0.001]. Patients who received baloxavir had no significant difference in hospital length of stay [median = 4 (IQR = 3-6) days versus 5 (IQR = 3-6) days; P = 0.45] or 30 day all-cause mortality [12 (3.3%) versus 26 (6%); P = 0.079] compared with those who received oseltamivir. However, patients who received baloxavir had a significantly faster time to hypoxia resolution [median = 51.7 (IQR = 25.3-89.3) h versus 72 (IQR = 37.5-123) h; P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the use of baloxavir for the treatment of influenza A in hospitalized patients with the potential benefit of a faster time to resolution of hypoxia.

The Use of Intravenous Lidocaine for the Management of Acute Pain Secondary to Traumatic Ankle Injury: A Case Report.

Sports-related injuries are a frequent cause of visits to the emergency department (ED) across the United States. A majority of these injuries affect the lower extremities with the ankle as the most frequently reported site. Most sports-related injuries are not severe enough to require inpatient hospitalization; however, they often lead to acute distress and pain which require prompt treatment with analgesics. Approximately 22% of patients who presented to the ED required pharmacotherapy for acute pain management. Opioids have been traditionally used for the management of severe acute pain in the ED; however, there are growing concerns for opioid overuse and misuse. As a result, there is growing controversy regarding the appropriate selection of analgesic agents, optimal dosing, and need for outpatient therapy which has contributed to changes in prescribing patterns of opioids in the ED. Lidocaine, a class 1b antiarrhythmic, has been utilized as an analgesic agent. Its use has been documented for the management of intractable chronic pain caused by cancer, stroke, neuropathies, or nephrolithiasis. However, literature describing the use of intravenous lidocaine for the management of acute pain secondary to trauma is limited to a single case series. This case report describes the use of intravenous lidocaine in a 17-year-old male who presented to the ED in acute distress secondary to ankle dislocation and fracture. This report serves to describe additional clinical experience with intravenous lidocaine for the management of acute pain secondary to ankle fracture in the emergency department.

Combination Therapy With Vancomycin and Ceftaroline for Refractory Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: A Case Series.

PURPOSE: Although vancomycin has been the mainstay of therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, its effectiveness has been challenged. Combination therapy may be used for patients with persistent MRSA bacteremia refractory to initial therapy. Studies have reported in vitro synergy between vancomycin and ceftaroline; however, clinical experience with this therapy is limited. Here, we report our experience with 5 cases of vancomycin-refractory MRSA bacteremia treated with the combination of vancomycin and ceftaroline. METHODS: Between January 2014 and August 2016, 5 patients were identified who received vancomycin and ceftaroline combination therapy due to persistent bacteremia or deterioration of their clinical status on vancomycin alone (despite a vancomycin MIC within the susceptible range). FINDINGS: Five patients presented with MRSA bacteremia secondary to endocarditis (n = 2), epidural abscess (n = 2), or left iliopsoas abscess (n = 1). Four of the 5 patients experienced microbiologic cure, and 1 patient transitioned to palliative care. IMPLICATIONS: This case series serves to describe additional clinical experience with vancomycin and ceftaroline combination therapy. This combination may be considered when vancomycin monotherapy does not lead to microbiological and/or clinical improvement in patients with metastatic MRSA bacteremia. Additional studies are warranted to further define its role in salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia.

Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir (harvoni): improving options for hepatitis C virus infection.

Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni): improving options for hepatitis C virus infection.