No abstract

Background Few data are reported in the literature about the outcome of patients with severe extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) infections treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T), in empiric or definitive therapy. Methods A multicenter retrospective study was performed in Italy (June 2016–June 2019). Successful clinical outcome was defined as complete resolution of clinical signs/symptoms related to ESBL-E infection and lack of microbiological evidence of infection. The primary end point was to identify predictors of clinical failure of C/T therapy. Results C/T treatment was documented in 153 patients: pneumonia was the most common diagnosis (n = 46, 30%), followed by 34 cases of complicated urinary tract infections (22.2%). Septic shock was observed in 42 (27.5%) patients. C/T was used as empiric therapy in 46 (30%) patients and as monotherapy in 127 (83%) patients. Favorable clinical outcome was observed in 128 (83.7%) patients; 25 patients were considered to have failed C/T therapy. Overall, 30-day mortality was reported for 15 (9.8%) patients. At multivariate analysis, Charlson comorbidity index >4 (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9–3.5; P = .02), septic shock (OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.8–7.9; P < .001), and continuous renal replacement therapy (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9–5.3; P = .001) were independently associated with clinical failure, whereas empiric therapy displaying in vitro activity (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01–0.34; P < .001) and adequate source control of infection (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.14–0.55; P < .001) were associated with clinical success. Conclusions Data show that C/T could be a valid option in empiric and/or targeted therapy in patients with severe infections caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales. Clinicians should be aware of the risk of clinical failure with standard-dose C/T therapy in septic patients receiving CRRT.

Background: Experience in real clinical practice with ceftazidime-avibactam for the treatment of serious infections due to gram−negative bacteria (GNB) other than carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) is very limited. Methods: We carried out a retrospective multicenter study of patients hospitalized in 13 Italian hospitals who received ≥72 h of ceftazidime-avibactam for GNB other than CRE to assess the rates of clinical success, resistance development, and occurrence of adverse events. Results: Ceftazidime-avibactam was used to treat 41 patients with GNB infections other than CRE. Median age was 62 years and 68% of them were male. The main causative agents were P. aeruginosa (33/41; 80.5%) and extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales (4/41, 9.8%). Four patients had polymicrobial infections. All strains were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam. The most common primary infection was nosocomial pneumonia (n = 20; 48.8%), primary bacteremia (n = 7; 17.1%), intra-abdominal infection (n = 4; 9.8%), and bone infection (n = 4; 9.8%). Ceftazidime-avibactam was mainly administered as a combination treatment (n = 33; 80.5%) and the median length of therapy was 13 days. Clinical success at the end of the follow-up period was 90.5%, and the only risk factor for treatment failure at multivariate analysis was receiving continuous renal replacement therapy during ceftazidime-avibactam. There was no association between clinical failures and type of primary infection, microbiological isolates, and monotherapy with ceftazidime-avibactam. Only one patient experienced recurrent infection 5 days after the end of treatment. Development of resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam was not detected in any case during the whole follow-up period. No adverse events related to ceftazidime-avibactam were observed in the study population. Conclusions: Ceftazidime-avibactam may be a valuable therapeutic option for serious infections due to GNB other than CRE.

The emerging outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread worldwide. We prescribed some promising medication to our patients with mild to moderate pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2, however such drugs as chloroquine, hydrossichloroquine, azithromycin, antivirals (lopinavir/ritonavir, darunavir/cobicistat) and immunomodulating agents (steroids, tocilizumab) were not confirmed as effective against SARS-CoV2. We, therefore, started to use auto-hemotherapy treated with an oxygen/ozone (O 2 /O 3 ) gaseous mixture as adjuvant therapy. In Udine University Hospital (Italy) we performed a case–control study involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 with mild to moderate pneumonia. Clinical presentations are based upon clinical phenotypes identified by the Italian Society of Emergency and Urgency Medicine (SIMEU—Società Italiana di Medicina di Emergenza-Urgenza) and patients that met criteria of phenotypes 2 to 4 were treated with best available therapy (BAT), with or without O 3 -autohemotherapy. 60 patients were enrolled in the study: 30 patients treated with BAT and O 2 /O 3 mixture, as adjuvant therapy and 30 controls treated with BAT only. In the group treated with O 3 -autohemotherapy plus BAT, patients were younger but with more severe clinical phenotypes. A decrease of SIMEU clinical phenotypes was observed (2.70 ± 0.67 vs. 2.35 ± 0.88, p = 0.002) in all patients during hospitalization but this clinical improvement was statistically significant only in O 3 -treated patients (2.87 ± 0.78 vs. 2.27 ± 0.83, p < 0.001), differently to the control group (2.53 ± 0.51 vs. 2.43 ± 0.93, p = 0.522). No adverse events were observed associated with the application of O 2 /O 3 gaseous mixture. O 2 /O 3 therapy as adjuvant therapy could be useful in mild to moderate pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2. Randomized prospective study is ongoing [Clinical Trials.gov ID: Z7C2CA5837].