Background Treatment of complicated infections in persons who inject drugs (PWID) and patients experiencing homelessness poses a unique challenge to clinicians. Long-acting lipoglycopeptide antibiotics, such as oritavancin, may facilitate extended courses of outpatient intravenous therapy while avoiding the need for central lines, improving compliance and thus increasing the chance of clinical cure. Methods Retrospective chart review of adult PWID who received at least one dose of oritavancin for a gram-positive infection between 1/1/17 and 6/30/19 at a large safety net hospital. Results Twenty three PWID received 24 courses of at least one dose of oritavancin for a gram-positive infection; 16 were experiencing homelessness at the time of diagnosis. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was the most common infecting pathogen and bone or joint the most frequent infection site. Nineteen encounters resulted in clinical cure, including 5 whose conditions improved despite non-adherence to their prescribed regimen. Three patients experienced a non-favorable outcome. Two patients experienced mild adverse drug reactions that did not interfere with therapy; no patients died while on therapy. Conclusion Oritavancin may be a clinically effective treatment option for the management of complicated gram-positive infections in PWID and patients experiencing homelessness. Further studies should be performed to validate these results.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare but increasingly prevalent disease with high morbidity and mortality, requiring antimicrobials and at times surgical intervention. Through the decades of healthcare professionals’ experience with managing IE, certain dogmas and uncertainties have arisen around its pharmacotherapy. The introduction of new antimicrobials and novel combinations are exciting developments but also further complicate IE treatment choices. In this review, we provide and evaluate the relevant evidence focused around contemporary debates in IE treatment pharmacotherapy, including beta-lactam choice in MSSA IE, combination therapies (aminoglycosides, ceftaroline), the use of oral antimicrobials, the role of rifamycins, and long-acting lipoglycopeptides.

No abstract

This cross-sectional study assesses the prevalence of conflicts of interest (COI) associated with guideline-recommended drugs among Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline authors and compliance with the Council on Medical Specialty Societies and Institute of Medicine guidelines.

Background Patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection have been shown to have abnormal coagulation parameters and are at increased risk of thromboembolism. The optimal thromboprophylaxis regimen that minimizes thrombosis without increased risk of serious bleeding is uncertain. Objectives To describe the efficacy and safety of increased intensity (enhanced) thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU). Methods This is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to the MICU of an urban safety net hospital. With the exception of patients being supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or on chronic anticoagulation who received therapeutic dosing of anticoagulation, thromboprophylaxis was given as either enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in doses higher than those recommended for standard prophylaxis, but lower than those used for therapeutic anticoagulation. Main results Of the 120 patients managed with an enhanced thromboprophylaxis protocol, 6 (5%) experienced thromboembolism as a result of their COVID-19 disease (1 pulmonary embolus, 4 deep vein thromboses, and 1 arterial embolism). Four patients experienced major bleeding while receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. Conclusions In critically ill patients with COVID-19, increased intensity (enhanced) thromboprophylaxis appears to be effective at preventing clinically significant thromboembolic events without an increased risk of serious bleeding.