CEFTO-CURE study: CEFTObiprole Clinical Use in Real-lifE - a multi-centre experience in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Ceftobiprole is approved in Europe for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia and non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in adults. Real-world data are limited. METHODS: This multi-centre, observational, ambispective investigator-initiated study was undertaken in Italy from January 2018 to December 2019 in order to evaluate the use of ceftobiprole in a real-world setting. RESULTS: Overall, 195 patients from 10 centres were evaluated (68% retrospectively). Male sex was prevalent (n=121, 62%). Median age was 67 [interquartile range (IQR) 53-75] years. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 5 (IQR 3-7). The most common indication was pneumonia (151/195, 77%), especially HAP. Other uses were skin and soft tissue infections (5%), endocarditis (4%) and bone infections (4%). Ceftobiprole was usually an empiric choice (65%), in combination with other drugs (66%) and as second-line therapy (58%). A causative agent was found in 39% of cases. A diagnosis of sepsis was made in 59 cases (30%). Success in the clinically evaluable population (excluding 12 cases due to isolation of pathogens outside ceftobiprole's spectrum of activity) was obtained in 79% of cases, with all-cause mortality of 20%. On multi-level analysis, three predictors were positively associated with clinical success: male gender, pneumonia and detection of causal agent. Sepsis was a negative predictor. Nine factors were independently associated, favourably or unfavourably, with fatal outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftobiprole is a safe and effective therapeutic choice, even in a real-world setting. More data are needed to establish its efficacy in patients with sepsis.

Ventilatory associated barotrauma in COVID-19 patients: A multicenter observational case control study (COVI-MIX-study).

BACKGROUND: The risk of barotrauma associated with different types of ventilatory support is unclear in COVID-19 patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the different respiratory support strategies on barotrauma occurrence; we also sought to determine the frequency of barotrauma and the clinical characteristics of the patients who experienced this complication. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective case-control study from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 included COVID-19 patients who experienced barotrauma during hospital stay. They were matched with controls in a 1:1 ratio for the same admission period in the same ward of treatment. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression (OR) were performed to explore which factors were associated with barotrauma and in-hospital death. RESULTS: We included 200 cases and 200 controls. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 39.3% of patients in the barotrauma group, and in 20.1% of controls (p<0.001). Receiving non-invasive ventilation (C-PAP/PSV) instead of conventional oxygen therapy (COT) increased the risk of barotrauma (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.30 - 11.08, p<0.001), similarly for invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 6.24, 95% CI 2.86-13.60, p<0.001). High Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO), compared with COT, did not significantly increase the risk of barotrauma. Barotrauma frequency occurred in 1.00% [95% CI 0.88-1.16] of patients; these were older (p=0.022) and more frequently immunosuppressed (p=0.013). Barotrauma was shown to be an independent risk for death (OR 5.32, 95% CI 2.82-10.03, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: C-PAP/PSV compared with COT or HFNO increased the risk of barotrauma; otherwise HFNO did not. Barotrauma was recorded in 1.00% of patients, affecting mainly patients with more severe COVID-19 disease. Barotrauma was independently associated with mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: this case-control study was prospectively registered in clinicaltrial.gov as NCT04897152 (on 21 May 2021).