RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of monotherapy versus combination therapy for the treatment of infections caused by S. maltophilia. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, cohort study included patients treated with either monotherapy or combination therapy for infections caused by S. maltophilia. Primary outcomes included overall in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and clinical cure. Safety outcomes were also evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was used as a control for confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 407 patients were included, 330 patients received monotherapy and 77 patients received combination therapy. A total of 21% presented with concomitant bacteremia. After adjusting the differences between the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences between patients who received monotherapy versus combination therapy in clinical cure (55% vs 65%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.40-1.31) and overall in-hospital mortality (52% vs 49%; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45-1.57). However, patients who received monotherapy had a lower rate of 30-day mortality (28% vs 32%; OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.90) and acute kidney injury (9% vs 18%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.78). CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes did not significantly differ in patients who received combination therapy versus monotherapy. More data are needed to validate these findings.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) has long been considered the treatment of choice for infections caused by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Levofloxacin has emerged as a potential option for treating these infections. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients who received TMP-SMX versus levofloxacin for treating S. maltophilia infections. METHODS: A retrospective, cohort study was conducted in 4 tertiary centres and included patients who were treated with either TMP-SMX or levofloxacin for infections caused by S. maltophilia. The main study outcomes were overall in-hospital mortality, 30-d mortality, and clinical cure. Safety outcomes were also evaluated. Multivariate analysis using logistic regression was used to control for the effect of the covariables. RESULTS: We included 371 patients in this study, 316 received TMP-SMX and 55 patients received levofloxacin. A total of 70% were in the intensive care unit and 21% presented with bacteraemia. No statistically significant differences were observed in overall in-hospital mortality (52% vs. 40%; P = 0.113; odd ratio [OR], 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-2.86), 30-d mortality (28% vs. 25%; P = 0.712; OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.59-2.18), or clinical cure (55% vs. 64%; P = 0.237; OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.37-1.31). Rates of acute kidney injury were comparable between the two groups (11% vs. 7%; P = 0.413). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving levofloxacin for the treatment of infections caused by S. maltophilia demonstrated clinical outcomes similar to those receiving TMP-SMX. Our study suggests that levofloxacin can be a reasonable alternative to TMP-SMX to treat these infections.
RESUMEN
Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are widely prescribed medications for various clinical indications in adults and children. They are available in both immediate and long-acting formulations and are generally classified into dihydropyridines and nondihydropyridines, with nondihydropyridines having more cardioselectivity. CCB toxicity is common given the widespread use which leads to serious adverse clinical outcomes, especially in children. Severe CCB toxicities may present with life-threatening bradycardia, hypotension, hyperglycemia, and renal insufficiency. Dihydropyridine toxicity, however, may present with reflex tachycardia instead of bradycardia. Initial patient evaluation and assessment are crucial to identify the severity of CCB toxicity and design the best management strategy. There are different strategies to overcome CCB toxicity that requires precise dosing and close monitoring in various patient populations. These strategies may include large volumes of IV fluids, calcium salts, high insulin euglycemia therapy (HIET), and vasopressors. We hereby summarize the evidence behind the management of CCB toxicity and present a practical guide for clinicians to overcome this common drug toxicity.
RESUMEN
Apixaban and rivaroxaban require lead-in dosing for 7 and 21 days, respectively, when treating venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, no evidence exists to support subtracting parenteral anticoagulation days from total lead-in dosing. A multicenter study was conducted, including adult patients with acute VTE who received apixaban or rivaroxaban. The patients were grouped as follows. The recommended group received oral lead-in anticoagulant for the full recommended duration. The mixed group received lead-in therapy as parenteral with oral anticoagulant. The incidence of recurrent VTE (rVTE) and major bleeding (MB) within 90 days were the main outcomes. Of the 368 included patients, 47.8% received apixaban, and 52.2% received rivaroxaban. The recommended lead-in was used in 296 patients (80.4%), whereas 72 (19.6%) received the mixed-lead-in regimen. Five patients had rVTE events within 90 days; two occurred during hospitalization in the recommended group versus none in the mixed group (0.7% vs. 0.0%; p = 1.000). After discharge, two events occurred in the recommended group and one in the mixed group (0.7% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.481). In terms of MB, 24 events occurred in 21 patients within 90 days. During hospitalization, 11 events occurred in the recommended group and seven in the mixed group (3.7% vs. 9.7%; p = 0.060). After discharge, five more events occurred in the recommended group and one in the mixed group (1.4% vs. 1.7%; p = 1.000). The mixed-lead-in regimen is safe and effective in comparison with the recommended-lead-in regimen.
