Tedizolid: a service evaluation in a large UK teaching hospital.

Tedizolid is a new oxazolidinone antibiotic with little real-life data on use outside of skin and soft tissue infections. There is a paucity of safety evidence in courses greater than 6 days. Our centre uses tedizolid predominantly when linezolid-associated adverse events have occurred. This service evaluation describes our experience to date. We performed a retrospective service evaluation by reviewing case notes, prescription charts, and laboratory system results for each patient prescribed tedizolid at our hospital and recording patient demographics, clinical details, and outcomes. Sixty patients received tedizolid between May 2016 and November 2018. Most were treated for bone or joint infections and had stopped linezolid prior to tedizolid prescription. Mean length of tedizolid therapy was 27 days. Haematological adverse effects were infrequent. Most patients (72%) finished the course and their clinical condition improved during treatment (72%). Adverse events were common, but often not thought to be tedizolid related. Tedizolid appears to be safe in prolonged courses within this context. It may be suitable for longer-term antibiotic therapy within a complex oral and parenteral outpatient antibiotic therapy (COPAT) service. Patients who do not tolerate linezolid can be safely switched to tedizolid if appropriate.

Sixty-eight consecutive patients assessed for COVID-19 infection: Experience from a UK Regional infectious diseases Unit.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of possible infection with SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 illness, has been a major activity of infection services since the first reports of cases in December 2019. OBJECTIVES: We report a series of 68 patients assessed at a Regional Infection Unit in the UK. METHODS: Between 29 January 2020 and 24 February 2020, demographic, clinical, epidemiological and laboratory data were collected. We compared clinical features between patients not requiring admission for clinical reasons or antimicrobials with those assessed as needing either admission or antimicrobial treatment. RESULTS: Patients assessed were aged from 0 to 76 years; 36/68 were female. Peaks of clinical assessments coincided with updates to the case definition for suspected COVID-19. Microbiological diagnoses included SARS-CoV-2, mycoplasma pneumonia, influenza A, non-SARS/MERS coronaviruses and rhinovirus/enterovirus. Nine of sixty-eight received antimicrobials, 15/68 were admitted, 5 due to inability to self-isolate. Patients requiring admission on clinical grounds or antimicrobials (14/68) were more likely to have fever or raised respiratory rate compared to those not requiring admission or antimicrobials. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients had mild illness, which did not require clinical intervention. This finding supports a community testing approach, supported by clinicians able to review more unwell patients. Extensions of the epidemiological criteria for the case definition of suspected COVID-19 lead to increased screening intensity; strategies must be in place to accommodate this in time for forthcoming changes as the epidemic develops.