Management of enterococcal central line-associated bloodstream infections in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Enterococcus species are the third most common organisms causing central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). The management of enterococcal CLABSI, including the need for and timing of catheter removal, is not well defined. We therefore conducted this study to determine the optimal management of enterococcal CLABSI in cancer patients. METHODS: We reviewed data for 542 patients diagnosed with Enterococcus bacteremia between September 2011 to December 2018. After excluding patients without an indwelling central venous catheter (CVC), polymicrobial bacteremia or with CVC placement less than 48 h from bacteremia onset we classified the remaining 397 patients into 3 groups: Group 1 (G1) consisted of patients with CLABSI with mucosal barrier injury (MBI), Group 2 (G2) included patients with either catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) as defined in 2009 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infection by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) or CLABSI without MBI, and Group 3 (G3) consisted of patients who did not meet the CDC criteria for CLABSI. The impact of early (< 3 days after bacteremia onset) and late (3-7 days) CVC removal was compared. The composite primary outcome included absence of microbiologic recurrence, 90-day infection-related mortality, and 90-day infection-related complications. RESULTS: Among patients in G2, CVC removal within 3 days of bacteremia onset was associated with a trend towards a better overall outcome than those whose CVCs were removed later between days 3 to 7 (success rate 88% vs 63%). However, those who had CVCs retained beyond 7 days had a similar successful outcome than those who had CVC removal < 3 days (92% vs. 88%). In G1, catheter retention (removal > 7 days) was associated with a better success rates than catheter removal between 3 and 7 days (93% vs. 67%, p = 0.003). In non-CLABSI cases (G3), CVC retention (withdrawal > 7 days) was significantly associated with a higher success rates compared to early CVC removal (< 3 days) (90% vs. 64%, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Catheter management in patients with enterococcal bacteremia is challenging. When CVC removal is clinically indicated in patients with enterococcal CLABSI, earlier removal in less than 3 days may be associated with better outcomes. Based on our data, we cannot make firm conclusions about whether earlier removal (< 3 days) could be associated with better outcomes in patients with Enterococcal CLABSI whose CVC withdrawal is clinically indicated. In contrast, it seemed that catheter retention was associated to higher success outcome rates. Therefore, future studies are needed to clearly assess this aspect.

International multicenter study comparing COVID-19 in patients with cancer to patients without cancer: Impact of risk factors and treatment modalities on survivorship.

Background: In this international multicenter study, we aimed to determine the independent risk factors associated with increased 30 day mortality and the impact of cancer and novel treatment modalities in a large group of patients with and without cancer with COVID-19 from multiple countries. Methods: We retrospectively collected de-identified data on a cohort of patients with and without cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and November 2020 from 16 international centers. Results: We analyzed 3966 COVID-19 confirmed patients, 1115 with cancer and 2851 without cancer patients. Patients with cancer were more likely to be pancytopenic and have a smoking history, pulmonary disorders, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and corticosteroid use in the preceding 2 wk (p≤0.01). In addition, they were more likely to present with higher inflammatory biomarkers (D-dimer, ferritin, and procalcitonin) but were less likely to present with clinical symptoms (p≤0.01). By country-adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses, cancer was not found to be an independent risk factor for 30 day mortality (p=0.18), whereas lymphopenia was independently associated with increased mortality in all patients and in patients with cancer. Older age (≥65y) was the strongest predictor of 30 day mortality in all patients (OR = 4.47, p<0.0001). Remdesivir was the only therapeutic agent independently associated with decreased 30 day mortality (OR = 0.64, p=0.036). Among patients on low-flow oxygen at admission, patients who received remdesivir had a lower 30 day mortality rate than those who did not (5.9 vs 17.6%; p=0.03). Conclusions: Increased 30 day all-cause mortality from COVID-19 was not independently associated with cancer but was independently associated with lymphopenia often observed in hematolgic malignancy. Remdesivir, particularly in patients with cancer receiving low-flow oxygen, can reduce 30 day all-cause mortality. Funding: National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Real-World Use of Isavuconazole as Primary Therapy for Invasive Fungal Infections in High-Risk Patients with Hematologic Malignancy or Stem Cell Transplant.

(1) Introduction: Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among immunocompromised patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) and stem cell transplants (SCT). Isavuconazole was approved by FDA as a primary therapy for Invasive Aspergillosis (IA) and Mucormycosis. The aim of this study is to look at the real-world use of Isavuconazole in patients with HM and evaluate their clinical outcomes and safety. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of HM patients at MD Anderson Cancer Center who had definite, probable or possible mold infections between 1 April 2016 and 31 January 2020 and were treated with Isavuconazole for a period of at least 7 days. Clinical and radiological findings were assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 weeks of follow up. (3) Results: We included 200 HM patients with IFIs that were classified as definite (11), probable (63) and possible (126). Aspergillus spp was the most commonly isolated pathogen. The majority of patients (59%) received prophylaxis with anti-mold therapy and Isavuconazole was used as a primary therapy in 43% of patients, and as salvage therapy in 58%. The switch to Isavuconazole was driven by the failure of the primary therapy in 66% of the cases and by adverse effects in 29%. Isavuconazole was used as monotherapy in 30% of the cases and in combination in 70%. Adverse events possibly related to Isavuconazole were reported in eight patients (4%) leading to drug discontinuation. Moreover, a favorable response with Isavuconazole was observed in 40% at 6 weeks and in 60% at 12 weeks. There was no significant difference between isavuconazole monotherapy and combination therapy (p = 0.16 at 6 weeks and p = 0.06 at 12 weeks). Finally, there was no significant difference in outcome when Isavuconazole was used after failure of other anti-mold prophylaxis or treatment versus when used de novo as an anti-mold therapy (p = 0.68 at 6 weeks and p = 0.25 at 12 weeks). (4) Conclusions: Whether used as first-line therapy or after the failure of other azole and non-azole prophylaxis or therapies, isavuconazole seems to have a promising clinical response and a good safety profile as an antifungal therapy in high-risk cancer patients with hematologic malignancies. Moreover, combination therapy did not improve the outcome compared to Isavuconazole therapy.

A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Ceftolozane/Tazobactam to Standard of Care in the Management of Neutropenia and Fever in Patients With Hematological Malignancies.

Background: With increased use of antibiotics in high-risk patients, the investigation of new antibiotics to cover potentially resistant pathogens is warranted. In this prospective randomized trial, we compared ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T), a new cephalosporin/ß-lactamase inhibitor, to the standard of care (SOC) for the empiric treatment of neutropenia and fever in patients with hematological malignancies. Methods: We enrolled 100 patients to receive intravenous (IV) C/T or SOC antibiotics (cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, or meropenem) in combination with gram-positive antibacterial agents. We evaluated responses at the end of IV therapy (EOIV), test of cure (TOC; days 21-28), and late follow-up (LFU; days 35-42). Results: We analyzed 47 C/T patients and 50 SOC patients. C/T patients had a higher rate of favorable clinical response at EOIV (87% vs 72%). A 1-sided noninferiority analysis indicated that C/T was at least not inferior to the SOC for favorable clinical response at EOIV (P = .002), TOC (P = .004), and LFU (P = .002). Superiority tests showed that C/T led to significantly lower rates of clinical failure at TOC (6% vs 30%; P = .003) and LFU (9% vs 30%; P = .008). C/T and SOC patients with documented infections had similar rates of favorable microbiological response. Serious adverse events leading to drug discontinuation (2% vs 0%; P = .48) and overall mortality (6% vs 4%; P = .67) were similar in both groups. Conclusions: The empiric use of C/T in high-risk patients with hematological malignancies and febrile neutropenia is safe and associated with better clinical outcomes than SOC antimicrobial agents. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03485950.

International Multicenter Study Comparing Cancer to Non-Cancer Patients with COVID-19: Impact of Risk Factors and Treatment Modalities on Survivorship.

Background: In this international multicenter study we aimed to determine the independent risk factors associated with increased 30-day mortality and the impact of novel treatment modalities in a large group of cancer and non-cancer patients with COVID-19 from multiple countries. Methods: We retrospectively collected de-identified data on a cohort of cancer and non-cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and November 2020, from 16 international centers. Results: We analyzed 3966 COVID-19 confirmed patients, 1115 cancer and 2851 non-cancer patients. Cancer patients were more likely to be pancytopenic, and have a smoking history, pulmonary disorders, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and corticosteroid use in the preceding two weeks (p≤0.01). In addition, they were more likely to present with higher inflammatory biomarkers (D-dimer, ferritin and procalcitonin), but were less likely to present with clinical symptoms (p≤0.01). By multivariable logistic regression analysis, cancer was an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.07; p=0.035). Older age (≥65 years) was the strongest predictor of 30-day mortality in all patients (OR 4.55; 95% CI 3.34 to6.20; p< 0.0001). Remdesivir was the only therapeutic agent independently associated with decreased 30-day mortality (OR 0.58; CI 0.39-0.88; p=0.009). Among patients on low-flow oxygen at admission, patients who received remdesivir had a lower 30-day mortality rate than those who did not (5.9% vs 17.6%; p=0.03). Conclusions: Cancer is an independent risk factor for increased 30-day all-cause mortality from COVID-19. Remdesivir, particularly in patients receiving low-flow oxygen, can reduce 30-day all-cause mortality. Condensed Abstract: In this large multicenter worldwide study of 4015 patients with COVID-19 that included 1115 patients with cancer, we found that cancer is an independent risk factor for increased 30-day all-cause mortality. Remdesivir is a promising treatment modality to reduce 30-day all-cause mortality.