Background
Remdesivir is efficacious for severe COVID-19 in adults, but data in pregnant women are limited. We describe outcomes in the first 86 pregnant women with severe COVID-19 who were treated with remdesivir.
Methods
Reported data span March 21 to June 16, 2020 for hospitalized pregnant women with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and room air oxygen saturation ≤94% whose clinicians requested remdesivir through the compassionate use program. The intended remdesivir treatment course was 10 days (200mg on Day 1, followed by 100mg for Days 2-10, given intravenously).
Results
Nineteen of 86 women delivered before their first dose and were reclassified as immediate “postpartum” (median postpartum day=1; range 0-3). At baseline, 40% of pregnant women (median gestational age 28 weeks) required invasive ventilation, in contrast to 95% of postpartum women (median gestational age at delivery 30 weeks). By Day 28 of follow-up, the level of oxygen requirement decreased in 96% and 89% of pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. Among pregnant women, 93% of those on mechanical ventilation were extubated, 93% recovered, and 90% were discharged. Among postpartum women, 89% were extubated, 89% recovered, and 84% were discharged. Remdesivir was well tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse events (16%). Most adverse events were related to pregnancy and underlying disease; most laboratory abnormalities were Grades 1 or 2. There was one maternal death attributed to underlying disease and no neonatal deaths.
Conclusions
Among 86 pregnant and postpartum women with severe COVID-19 who received compassionate use remdesivir, recovery rates were high, with a low rate of serious adverse events.
Based on this retrospective review we did not observe a difference in TMC based on daptomycin dose and MIC; however, there were various limitations to this study, and the study was not powered to detect a difference in TMC. Also, prior vancomycin exposure did not appear to influence daptomycin MICs. The frequency of daptomycin MICs of 3-4 mg/L reported in this study is higher than those reported in the literature.
Background
Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKp) is the most prevalent carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales in the United States. We evaluated clustering of CRKp in hospitalized patients in US hospitals.
Methods
From April 2016 to August 2017, 350 patients with clonal group 258 were included as part of the Consortium on Resistance Against Carbapenems in Klebsiella and other Enterobacteriaceae (CRACKLE-2), a prospective, multicenter, cohort study. A maximum-likelihood tree was constructed using RAxML. Static clusters shared ≤21 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and a most recent common ancestor. Dynamic clusters incorporated SNP distance, culture timing, and rates of SNP accumulation and transmission using the R program TransCluster.
Results
Most patients were admitted from home (n = 150, 43%) or a long-term care facility (n = 115, 33%). Urine (n = 149, 43%) was the most common site of isolation. In total, 55 static and 47 dynamics clusters were identified involving 210/350 (60%) and 194/350 (55%) patients, respectively. About half of static clusters were identical to dynamic clusters. Static clusters consisted of 33 (60%) intra-system and 22 (40%) inter-system clusters. Dynamic clusters consisted of 32 (68%) intra-system and 15 (32%) inter-system clusters and had fewer SNP differences compared to static clusters (8 versus 9, P= 0.045, 95% CI: [-4, 0]). Dynamic inter-system clusters contained more patients than dynamic intra-system clusters (median [IQR]: 4 [2, 7] vs 2 [2, 2], P= 0.007, 95% CI: [-3, 0]).
Conclusions
Widespread intra-system and inter-system transmission of CRKp was identified in hospitalized US patients. Employing different methods for assessing genetic similarity resulted in only minor differences in interpretation.
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.