BackgroundCarbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative pathogens are recognized as a major health concern. This study examined the prevalence of infections due to 4 CR Gram-negative species (Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Escherichia coli) in the United States and assessed their impact on hospital stays and mortality.MethodsHospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed infection due to any of the 4 Gram-negative pathogens were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Proportions of CR were calculated by pathogen and infection site (blood, respiratory, urinary, or other) for the United States as whole and by census regions. Crude and adjusted odds ratios for in-hospital mortality were produced using logistic regression.ResultsFrom 2009 to 2013, 13 262 (4.5%) of 292 742 infections due to these 4 Gram-negative pathogens were CR. Of these CR infections, 82.3% were caused by A. baumannii (22%) or P. aeruginosa (60.3%), while 17.7% were caused by K. pneumoniae or E. coli. CR patients had longer hospital stays than carbapenem-susceptible (CS) patients in all pathogen-infection site cohorts, except in the A. baumannii-respiratory cohort. The crude all cause in-hospital mortality was greater for most pathogen-infection site cohorts of the CR group compared with the CS group, especially for A. baumannii infection in the blood (crude odds ratio [OR], 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.69–5.70). This difference for the A. baumannii-blood cohort remained after adjusting for the relevant covariates (adjusted OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.43–4.22).ConclusionThe majority of CR infections and disease burden in the United States was caused by nonfermenters A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa. Patients with CR infections had longer hospital stays and higher crude in-hospital mortality.
Malocclusion has a significant negative impact on OHRQoL. This is greatest for the psychological discomfort and psychological disability domains. The orthodontic treatment of malocclusion improves OHRQoL of patients.
Aim
Lusutrombopag is approved for the treatment of thrombocytopenia in chronic liver disease patients undergoing invasive procedures. This real‐world surveillance assesses the safety and effectiveness of lusutrombopag in Japan.
Methods
This ongoing, multicenter, prospective, real‐world surveillance is collecting data from case report forms between October 2016 and May 2021. Interim data up to September 2018 were used to evaluate safety (adverse events and adverse drug reactions [ADRs]) and effectiveness (proportion of patients avoiding preoperative platelet transfusion and change in platelet count from baseline).
Results
The safety analysis set included 331 patients. The mean baseline platelet count was 46.2 ± 13.7 × 109/L. Of 377 invasive procedures, radiofrequency ablation (110 procedures, 29.2%) was the most frequent. The mean time from starting lusutrombopag treatment to invasive procedure was 12.3 days. Incidences of serious adverse events and ADRs were 8.76% and 3.32%, respectively. Six cases (1.81%) of portal vein thrombosis were considered serious adverse events; of these, four cases (1.21%) were classified as serious ADRs. Of 300 patients who underwent an invasive procedure (excluding those with platelet transfusion refractoriness), 282 (94.0%) avoided preoperative platelet transfusion. In patients with platelet measurements before and after lusutrombopag administration who did not undergo platelet transfusion, the mean maximum change in platelet count from baseline was 41.7 ± 31.4 × 109/L (range, −6 to 276; n = 286). All patients receiving second (n = 20) and third (n = 1) treatments avoided preoperative platelet transfusion without developing any ADRs.
Conclusions
This real‐world surveillance further supports the safety and effectiveness of lusutrombopag in patients with chronic liver disease undergoing invasive procedures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.