Clinical results with the use of ceftaroline and ceftobiprole: real-life experience in a tertiary care hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Ceftaroline and ceftobiprole show activity against resistant Gram-positive cocci as well as good tolerability and are increasingly used in diverse infections. No comparative data on the efficacy and safety of ceftaroline and ceftobiprole in real-life are available. METHODS: In this single-centre, observational, retrospective clinical study, the outcomes of patients treated with ceftaroline or ceftobiprole in our hospital were compared, assessing clinical data, use and drug exposure of study antibiotics, and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients were included in this study, including 75 treated with ceftaroline and 63 treated with ceftobiprole. Patients treated with ceftobiprole had more comorbidities [median Charlson comorbidity index 5 (4-7) vs. 4 (2-6) for ceftaroline; P = 0.003], a higher prevalence of multiple site infections (P < 0.001) and were more often treated empirically (P = 0.004), whilst ceftaroline was more frequently used in patients with healthcare-related infections. No differences were observed in terms of hospital mortality, length of stay, and rates of clinical cure, improvement or failure. The only independent predictor of outcome was Staphylococcus aureus infection. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In our real-life experience, ceftaroline and ceftobiprole, applied in different clinical scenarios, were comparable in terms of clinical efficacy and tolerability in a range of severe infections with variable aetiology and different levels of clinical severity. We believe our data may support the clinician in choosing the best option for each therapeutic setting.

Clinical efficacy and safety of cefiderocol for resistant Gram-negative infections: a real-life, single-centre experience.

OBJECTIVES: Cefiderocol is a 'siderophore' cephalosporin active against Gram-negative bacteria, including carbapenem-resistant strains. Data on the use of cefiderocol in real life are limited. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in the context of our hospital clinical practice. METHODS: This was a single-centre, observational, retrospective clinical study. We collected data for all patients who received cefiderocol therapy in our hospital, with a focus on clinical outcomes and adverse events. RESULTS: The study cohort included 28 patients, with a median age of 73 years (25-83 years) and a high burden of co-morbidities. Up to 45 Gram-negative isolates were cultured from the study patients, the most common pathogen being Acinetobacter baumannii (31.1%). Cefiderocol was mostly prescribed for pneumonia (37.8% of cases), bloodstream infection (24.4%), urinary tract infection (22.2%) and intra-abdominal infection (20%), and largely as salvage therapy (92.8%). Of the 18 patients for whom follow-up cultures were available, 14 (77.8%) achieved eradication of the causative micro-organism. Therapeutic success (improvement/resolution of infection) occurred in 64.3% of cases at 7 days and 50% at 14 days from treatment start. Treatment failed in 9 cases (32.1%). No effects on kidney, liver or bone marrow function were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Cefiderocol showed fair efficacy and excellent tolerability in highly co-morbid patients with a range of multiresistant infections. It may be an option for infections due to colistin-resistant pathogens, when other regimens fail or in cases at risk of kidney dysfunction.

Cardiac complications during the active phase of COVID-19: review of the current evidence.

Growing reports since the beginning of the pandemic and till date describe increased rates of cardiac complications (CC) in the active phase of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). CC commonly observed include myocarditis/myocardial injury, arrhythmias and heart failure, with an incidence reaching about a quarter of hospitalized patients in some reports. The increased incidence of CC raise questions about the possible heightened susceptibility of patients with cardiac disease to develop severe COVID-19, and whether the virus itself is involved in the pathogenesis of CC. The wide array of CC seems to stem from multiple mechanisms, including the ability of the virus to directly enter cardiomyocytes, and to indirectly damage the heart through systemic hyperinflammatory and hypercoagulable states, endothelial injury of the coronary arteries and hypoxemia. The induced CC seem to dramatically impact the prognosis of COVID-19, with some studies suggesting over 50% mortality rates with myocardial damage, up from ~ 5% overall mortality of COVID-19 alone. Thus, it is particularly important to investigate the relation between COVID-19 and heart disease, given the major effect on morbidity and mortality, aiming at early detection and improving patient care and outcomes. In this article, we review the growing body of published data on the topic to provide the reader with a comprehensive and robust description of the available evidence and its implication for clinical practice.

Diagnostic Clues for the Diagnosis of Nonsarcomeric Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (Phenocopies): Amyloidosis, Fabry Disease, and Mitochondrial Disease.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common known inherited heart disorder, with a prevalence of 1:500 of the adult population. Etiology of HCM can be heterogeneous, with sarcomeric gene disease as the leading cause in up to 60% of the patients, and with a number of possible different diseases (phenocopies) in about 10%-15% of the patients. Early diagnosis of storage and infiltrative disorders, particularly those with specific treatments (i.e., Fabry disease and/or amyloidosis), means early management and treatment, with a significant impact on patients prognosis. Here, we report on four different cases of HCM, highlighting difficulties to make differential diagnosis of different forms of cardiomyopathies, and their potential impact on the management.

Management of Bradyarrhythmias in Heart Failure: A Tailored Approach.

Patients with heart failure (HF) may develop a range of bradyarrhythmias including sinus node dysfunction, various degrees of atrioventricular block, and ventricular conduction delay. Device implantation has been recommended in these patients, but the specific etiology should be sought as it may influence the choice of the type of device required (pacemaker vs. implantable cardiac defibrillator). Also, pacing mode must be carefully set in patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction.In this chapter, we summarize the knowledge required for a tailored approach to bradyarrhythmias in patients with heart failure.