Ceft-to-Ceft Study: Real-Life Experience with Ceftaroline and Ceftobiprole in Treatment of the Principal Infectious Syndromes in a Spanish Multicenter Hospital Cohort.

BACKGROUND: To compare the real-life effectiveness and safety of ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline-F) and ceftobiprole medocaril (ceftobiprole-M) for infections in hospitalized patients. METHODS: This comparative, observational, retrospective, and multicenter Spanish study included patients receiving outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and hospitalized patients treated for at least 48 h with ceftaroline-F or ceftobiprole-M between their first incorporation in the clinical protocol of each hospital and 31 July 2022. RESULTS: Ceftaroline-F was administered to 227 patients and ceftobiprole-M to 212. In comparison to the latter, ceftaroline-F-treated participants were younger (63.02 vs. 66.40 years, OR 1.1; 95%CI: 1.001-1.05) and had higher rates of septic shock (OR 0.27; 95%CI: 0.09-0.81) and higher frequencies of targeted (57.7 vs. 29.7%; OR: 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18-0.69) and combined (89.0 vs. 45.8%, OR: 0.13; 95%CI: 0.06-0.28) therapies that were second line or more (82.4% vs. 64.6%%; OR 0.35; 95%CI: 0.18-0.69), and higher rates of infections due to Gram-positive cocci (92.7 vs. 64.7%, p = 0.001), bacteremia (51.9 vs. 21.7%, p = 0.001), infective endocarditis (24.2 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.0001), and mechanical ventilation-associated pneumonia (8.8 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.0001). Ceftobiprole-M was more frequently administered against polymicrobial infections (38.1 vs. 14.0%, p = 0.001), those produced by Gram-negative bacilli (19.7 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.0001), nosocomial pneumonia (33 vs. 10.6%, p = 0.0001), and skin and soft-tissue infections (25.4 vs. 10.1%, p = 0.0001). Patients treated with ceftaroline-F had a longer hospital stay (36 (IQR: 19-60) vs. 19.50 (IQR: 12-30.75, p = 0.0001) days), with no difference in infection-related mortality at 14 (13.2 vs. 8.0%, p = 0.078) or 28 (4.8 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.415) days or in dropout rate for adverse effects (2.2 vs. 0.9%; p = 1). CONCLUSIONS: The fifth-generation cephalosporins, ceftaroline-F and ceftobiprole-M, are safe and effective in real life, with no difference between them in health outcomes.

Use of Monoclonal Antibodies in Immunocompromised Patients Hospitalized with Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe the safety and efficacy of sotrovimab in severe cases of COVID-19 in immunocompromised hosts. METHODS: We used a retrospective multicenter cohort including immunocompromised hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab between October 2021 and December 2021. RESULTS: We included 32 patients. The main immunocompromising conditions were solid organ transplantation (46.9%) and hematological malignancy (37.5%). Seven patients (21.9%) had respiratory progression: 12.5% died and 9.4% required mechanical ventilation. Patients treated within the first 14 days of their symptoms had a lower progression rate: 12.0% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.029. No adverse event was attributed to sotrovimab. CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab was safe and may be effective in its use for immunocompromised patients with severe COVID-19. More studies are needed to confirm these preliminary data.

Association of COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis with Cytomegalovirus Replication: A Case-Control Study.

Introduction: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a well-known factor associated with invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised hosts. However, its association with COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) has not been described. We aimed to examine the possible link between CMV replication and CAPA occurrence. Methods: A single-center, retrospective case-control study was conducted. A case was defined as a patient diagnosed with CAPA according to 2020 ECMM/ISHAM consensus criteria. Two controls were selected for each case among critically ill COVID-19 patients. Results: In total, 24 CAPA cases were included, comprising 14 possible CAPA and 10 probable CAPA. Additionally, 48 matched controls were selected. CMV replication was detected more frequently in CAPA than in controls (75.0% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.002). Probable CMV end-organ disease was more prevalent in CAPA (20.8% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.037). After adjusting for possible confounding factors, CMV replication persisted strongly associated with CAPA (OR 8.28 95% CI 1.90-36.13, p = 0.005). Among 11 CAPA cases with CMV PCR available prior to CAPA, in 9 (81.8%) cases, CMV replication was observed prior to CAPA diagnosis. Conclusions: Among critically ill COVID-19 patients, CMV replication was associated with CAPA and could potentially be considered a harbinger of CAPA. Further studies are needed to confirm this association.

COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA): Risk factors and development of a predictive score for critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a major complication of critically ill COVID-19 patients, with a high mortality rate and potentially preventable. Thus, identifying patients at high risk of CAPA would be of great interest. We intended to develop a clinical prediction score capable of stratifying patients according to the risk for CAPA at ICU admission. METHODS: Single centre retrospective case-control study. A case was defined as a patient diagnosed with CAPA according to 2020 ECMM/ISHAM consensus criteria. 2 controls were selected for each case among critically ill COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: 28 CAPA patients and 56-matched controls were included. Factors associated with CAPA included old age (68 years vs. 62, p = .033), active smoking (17.9% vs. 1.8%, p = .014), chronic respiratory diseases (48.1% vs. 26.3%, p = .043), chronic renal failure (25.0% vs. 3.6%, p = .005), chronic corticosteroid treatment (28.6% vs. 1.8%, p < .001), tocilizumab therapy (92.9% vs. 66.1%, p = .008) and high APACHE II at ICU admission (median 13 vs. 10 points, p = .026). A score was created including these variables, which showed an area under the receiver operator curve of 0.854 (95% CI 0.77-0.92). A punctuation below 6 had a negative predictive value of 99.6%. A punctuation of 10 or higher had a positive predictive value of 27.9%. CONCLUSION: We present a clinical prediction score that allowed to stratify critically ill COVID-19 patients according to the risk for developing CAPA. This CAPA score would allow to target preventive measures. Further evaluation of the score, as well as the utility of these targeted preventive measures, is needed.

Incidence, Clinical Presentation, Relapses and Outcome of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection in Patients Treated With Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Our objective is to describe the presentation and complications, including relapses, of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients under anti-CD20 treatments. In addition, to describe viral clearance and determine the safety of reintroducing anti-CD20 treatment. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 422 patients under anti-CD20 treatment that was administered from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 (13.5%). Twenty-five patients (43.9%) required hospital admission. Five patients died (8.8%), and 10 developed severe COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Mortality rate was higher among patients infected during the first 3 months following the last dose of anti-CD20 (14.7% vs 0%, P = .046). The median time of persistence of positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was 22 days (IQR 13-40).Nine out of 52 survivors (17.3%) presented relapses. All of them received the last dose of anti-CD20 less than 6 months before the COVID-19 episode. Clinical presentation was fever (n = 8; 88.9%), dyspnea (n = 7; 77.8%), cough (n = 7; 77.8%), worsening of previous infiltrates (n = 5; 55.6%) and new pulmonary infiltrates (n = 8; 88.9%). An increase in lymphocytes with CD4/CD8 ratio inversion was observed in all cases. Among the 25 patients who resumed anti-CD20 drug, 4 (16.0%) presented relapses vs 5/28 among those who did not (17.9%), (P = .857). CONCLUSIONS: Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the 6 months after anti-CD20 administration had a worse outcome and a higher mortality rate. The duration of infectivity may be longer. Relapses of COVID-19 occurred in more than 15% and were associated with viral replication. Once the infection is resolved, it is safe to restart treatment with anti-CD20.