Chloramphenicol treatment revisited - demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of hospitalized patients.

Limited literature exists on chloramphenicol's clinical use. In this retrospective, single-center case-series, we examined 183 chloramphenicol-treated and 81 piperacillin-tazobactam-treated medical patients. Chloramphenicol recipients were older, more debilitated, cognitively impaired, and penicillin allergic, while increased need for inotropics, higher leukocyte count, and higher creatinine levels were notable in the piperacillin-tazobactam group. Pneumonia was the most common indication, with no mortality difference between groups. While acknowledging its antimicrobial activity and potential benefit in specific conditions such as pneumonia, further clinical studies are needed to assess the role of chloramphenicol in the setting where other alternatives are available.

An international multicenter study comparing COVID-19 omicron outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies treated with obinutuzumab versus rituximab.

OBJECTIVES: Hematological malignancy (HM) patients treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are at higher risk for severe COVID-19. A previous single-center study showed worse outcomes in patients treated with obinutuzumab compared to rituximab. We examined this hypothesis in a large international multicenter cohort. METHODS: We included HM patients from 15 centers, from five countries treated with anti-CD20, comparing those treated with obinutuzumab (O-G) to rituximab (R-G) between December 2021 and June 2022, when Omicron lineage was dominant. RESULTS: We collected data on 1048 patients. Within the R-G (n = 762, 73%), 191 (25%) contracted COVID-19 compared to 103 (36%) in the O-G. COVID-19 patients in the O-G were younger (61 ± 11.7 vs. 64 ± 14.5, p = 0.039), had more indolent HM diagnosis (aggressive lymphoma: 3.9% vs. 67.0%, p < 0.001), and most were on maintenance therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (63.0% vs. 16.8%, p < 0.001). Severe-critical COVID-19 occurred in 31.1% of patients in the O-G and 22.5% in the R-G. In multivariable analysis, O-G had a 2.08-fold increased risk for severe-critical COVID-19 compared to R-G (95% CI 1.13-3.84), adjusted for Charlson comorbidity index, sex, and tixagevimab/cilgavimab (T-C) prophylaxis. Further analysis comparing O-G to R-G demonstrated increased hospitalizations (51.5% vs. 35.6% p = 0.008), ICU admissions (12.6% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.042), but the nonsignificant difference in COVID-19-related mortality (n = 10, 9.7% vs. n = 12, 6.3%, p = 0.293). CONCLUSIONS: Despite younger age and a more indolent HM diagnosis, patients receiving obinutuzumab had more severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving rituximab. Our findings underscore the need to evaluate the risk-benefit balance when considering obinutuzumab therapy for HM patients during respiratory viral outbreaks.

The use of a diversion tube to reduce blood culture contamination: A "real-life" quality improvement intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Blood culture contamination is associated with health care costs and potential patient harm. Diversion of the initial blood specimen reduces blood culture contamination. We report results of the "real-life" clinical implementation of this technique. METHODS: Following an educational campaign, use of a dedicated diversion tube was recommended prior to all blood cultures. Blood culture sets taken from adults using a diversion tube were defined as "diversion sets," those without, "non-diversion" sets. Blood culture contamination and true positive rates were compared for diversion and nondiversion sets and to nondiversion historical controls. A secondary analysis investigated efficacy of diversion by patient age. RESULTS: Out of 20,107 blood culture sets drawn, the diversion group included 12,774 (60.5%) and the nondiversion group 8,333 (39.5%) sets. The historical control group included 32,472 sets. Comparing nondiversion to diversion, contamination decreased by 31% (5.5% [461/8333] to 3.8% [489/12744], P < .0001]. Contamination was also 12% lower in diversion than historical controls [3.8% (489/12744) vs 4.3% (1,396/33,174) P = .02)]. The rate of true bacteremia was similar. In older patients, contamination rate was higher, and the relative reduction associated with diversion decreased (54.3% amongst 20-40-year-olds vs 14.5% amongst >80-year-olds). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a diversion tube in the ED reduced blood culture contamination in this large real life observational study. Efficacy decreased with increasing age, which requires further investigation.