Lenacapavir: A novel injectable HIV-1 capsid inhibitor.

Patients living with multidrug-resistant (MDR) HIV have limited antiretroviral regimen options that provide durable viral suppression. Lenacapavir is a novel first-in-class inhibitor of HIV-1 capsid function with efficacy at various stages of the viral life cycle, and it is indicated for the treatment of MDR HIV-1 infection in combination with optimized background antiretroviral therapy. The favourable pharmacokinetic profile supports an every sixth month dosing interval of subcutaneous lenacapavir after an initial oral loading dose, which may advocate for continued adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) through the reduction of daily pill burden. The role of lenacapavir in promoting virologic suppression has been studied in patients with MDR HIV-1 on failing ART at baseline. Lenacapavir was well tolerated in clinical trials with the most common adverse effects including mild to moderate injection site reactions, gastrointestinal symptoms, and headache. Substitutions on the capsid molecule may confer resistance to lenacapavir by changing the binding potential. Cross-resistance to other antiretrovirals has not been observed. The unique mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety and efficacy of lenacapavir support its use for the management of MDR HIV-1 infection. Current studies are ongoing to evaluate the potential use of subcutaneous lenacapavir for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Future studies will confirm the long-term clinical safety, efficacy, and resistance data for lenacapavir.

Impact of a Pharmacist-Conducted Preoperative Beta-Lactam Allergy Assessment on Perioperative Cefazolin Prescribing.

Background: Cefazolin is guideline recommended for perioperative prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. Despite its unique R1 side chain, cefazolin is often avoided in patients with beta-lactam allergy with concern for cross reactivity. Objectives: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who received cefazolin perioperatively. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients with a beta-lactam allergy clarified following the telephone interview and clinical outcomes including acute kidney injury, surgical site infection, Clostridioides difficile infection, and re-admission at 30 and 90 days. Methods: This single-center, quasi-experimental study evaluated a pilot program in which a pharmacist phoned patients > 18 years of age with a scheduled orthopedic surgery and a documented beta-lactam allergy to assess their allergy preoperatively. Recommendations to use cefazolin were based on an algorithm. Patients were divided into pre- and post-intervention cohorts. Results: A total of 832 patients were screened for inclusion with 135 and 66 patients included in the pre- and post-intervention cohorts. No significant difference was identified in the primary outcome. In the post-intervention cohort, 62% had a beta-lactam reaction updated in the electronic medical record. Those with a beta-lactam allergy delabeled or made less severe were numerically more likely to receive cefazolin than those with an unchanged reaction or a reaction made more severe (95.2% vs 68% vs 65%). There were no differences in clinical outcomes between groups. Conclusion: A pharmacist-conducted preoperative beta-lactam allergy interview in adult patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery improved beta-lactam allergy documentation but, did not result in increased utilization of cefazolin.

Does a Positive Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal Screen Predict the Risk for MRSA Skin and Soft Tissue Infection?

BACKGROUND: Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are often caused by gram-positive bacteria that colonize the skin. Given the overuse of antibiotics, SSTIs are increasingly caused by resistant bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Guidance on the utility of MRSA nasal screening for MRSA SSTI is limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether MRSA nasal screening predicts the risk of MRSA SSTIs. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with an SSTI diagnosis that had MRSA nasal screening and wound cultures obtained within 48 hours of starting antibiotics. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using VassarStats. Pretest and posttest probabilities were estimated with Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: A total of 884 patient encounters were reviewed between December 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021, and 300 patient encounters were included. The prevalence of MRSA SSTI was 18.3%. The MRSA nasal colonization had a sensitivity of 63.6%, specificity of 93.9%, positive predictive value of 70.0% (95% CI = 55.2%-81.7%), negative predictive value of 92.0% (95% CI = 87.7%-94.9%), positive likelihood ratio of 10.39 (95% CI = 6.12-17.65), negative likelihood ratio of 0.39 (95% CI = 0.27-0.55), positive posttest probability of 70.0%, and negative posttest probability of 8.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high positive likelihood ratio, a positive MRSA nasal screen was associated with a large increase in the probability of MRSA SSTI at our institution, and a negative MRSA nasal screen was associated with a small but potentially significant decrease in the probability of MRSA SSTI.