Antimicrobial resistance is a growing threat to public health and an increasingly common problem for acute care physicians to confront. Several novel antibiotics have been approved in the past decade to combat these infections; however, physicians may be unfamiliar with how to appropriately utilize them. The purpose of this review is to evaluate novel antibiotics active against resistant gram-negative bacteria and highlight clinical information regarding their use in the acute care setting. This review focuses on novel antibiotics useful in the treatment of infections caused by resistant gram-negative organisms that may be seen in the acute care setting. These novel antibiotics include ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, imipenem/cilistatin/relebactam, cefiderocol, plazomicin, eravacycline, and omadacycline. Acute care physicians should be familiar with these novel antibiotics so they can utilize them appropriately.

The boxed warning is increasingly utilized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a clinical warning to prescribers of dangerous adverse drug reactions. As these warnings have expanded, we feel the utility and application of boxed warnings are becoming more nebulous. The use of drugs following issuance of a boxed warning has been variable. Droperidol sales decreased 10-fold in the year following the warning, yet there has been essentially no change in the methadone usage over a similar time period after its boxed warning. Including more information, such as estimation of incidence for the adverse drug reaction, would be more clinically useful to the prescriber. Reasonable standards using supplemental databases outside of the FDA (such as national poison center data) could be helpful in developing an integrated and balanced approach to boxed warnings.

No abstract

IntroductionWe compared intubating with a preloaded bougie (PB) against standard bougie technique in terms of success rates, time to successful intubation and provider preference on a cadaveric airway model.MethodsIn this prospective, crossover study, healthcare providers intubated a cadaver using the PB technique and the standard bougie technique. Participants were randomly assigned to start with either technique. Following standardized training and practice, procedural success and time for each technique was recorded for each participant. Subsequently, participants were asked to rate their perceived ease of intubation on a visual analogue scale of 1 to 10 (1=difficult and 10=easy) and to select which technique they preferred.Results47 participants with variable experience intubating were enrolled at an emergency medicine intern airway course. The success rate of all groups for both techniques was equal (95.7%). The range of times to completion for the standard bougie technique was 16.0–70.2 seconds, with a mean time of 29.7 seconds. The range of times to completion for the PB technique was 15.7–110.9 seconds, with a mean time of 29.4 seconds. There was a non-significant difference of 0.3 seconds (95% confidence interval −2.8 to 3.4 seconds) between the two techniques. Participants rated the relative ease of intubation as 7.3/10 for the standard technique and 7.6/10 for the preloaded technique (p=0.53, 95% confidence interval of the difference −0.97 to 0.50). Thirty of 47 participants subjectively preferred the PB technique (p=0.039).ConclusionThere was no significant difference in success or time to intubation between standard bougie and PB techniques. The majority of participants in this study preferred the PB technique. Until a clear and clinically significant difference is found between these techniques, emergency airway operators should feel confident in using the technique with which they are most comfortable.