Cost evaluation of continuation of therapy with dalbavancin compared to standard-of-care antibiotics alone in hospitalized persons who inject drugs with severe gram-positive infections.

PURPOSE: Persons who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk for severe gram-positive infections and may require prolonged hospitalization and intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. Dalbavancin (DBV) is a long-acting lipoglycopeptide that may reduce costs and provide effective treatment in this population. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of PWID with severe gram-positive infections. Patients admitted from January 1, 2017, to November 1, 2019 (standard-of-care [SOC] group) and from November 15, 2019, to March 31, 2022 (DBV group) were included. The primary outcome was the total cost to the healthcare system. Secondary outcomes included hospital days saved and treatment failure. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included (37 in the DBV group and 50 in the SOC group). Patients were a median of 34 years old and were predominantly Caucasian (82%). Staphylococcus aureus (82%) was the most common organism, and bacteremia (71%) was the most common type of infection. Compared to the SOC group, the DBV group would have had a median of 14 additional days of hospitalization if they had stayed to complete their therapy (P = 0.014). The median total cost to the healthcare system was significantly lower in the DBV group than in the SOC group ($31,698.00 vs $45,093.50; P = 0.035). The rate of treatment failure was similar between the groups (32.4% in the DBV group vs 36% in the SOC group; P = 0.729). CONCLUSION: DBV is a cost-saving alternative to SOC IV antibiotics for severe gram-positive infections in PWID, with similar treatment outcomes. Larger prospective studies, including other patient populations, may demonstrate additional benefit.

Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Strategies in Patients With Non-Carbapenemase-producing Carbapenem-Resistant Versus Carbapenem-Susceptible Enterobacterales Infections.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are difficult to treat and can cause significant morbidity and mortality, however most data reflect carbapenemase-producing infections. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate clinical outcomes of non-carbapenemase-producing CRE (nCP-CRE) compared with carbapenem-susceptible Enterobacterales (CSE) infections. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study (January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020). The primary outcome was clinical success at 30 days with secondary outcomes, including clinical success at 90 days, clinical success based on treatment for nCP-CRE, persistent bacteremia, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, and rate of Clostridioides difficile or multidrug resistant infections. RESULTS: The final analysis included 211 patients: 142 (67%) with CSE and 69 (33%) with nCP-CRE infections. Prior carbapenem exposure was more common with nCP-CRE (15% vs 4%, P = 0.01). Clinical success at 30 days was similar between groups (77% vs 74%, P = 0.73). There were no differences in secondary outcomes. There was an overall low use of carbapenems (empiric 6%, definitive 7%). Most nCP-CRE infections were treated with a monotherapy carbapenem-sparing regimen (empiric 88%, definitive 90%). Limitations include the retrospective design and the high rate of urinary infections. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our study found no difference in clinical outcomes between nCP-CRE and CSE infections. Application of this study with future studies would help in determining optimal regimens for these infections.