Clinical outcomes of baloxavir versus oseltamivir in immunocompromised patients.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors, including oseltamivir, are the treatment standard for influenza. Baloxavir, a novel antiviral, demonstrated comparable outcomes to oseltamivir in outpatients with influenza. Baloxavir was equally effective as oseltamivir in a retrospective study of hospitalized patients with influenza at our institution. However, the efficacy of baloxavir in immunocompromised patients is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of immunocompromised adult patients hospitalized with influenza A who received baloxavir from January 2019 to April 2019 or oseltamivir from January 2018 to April 2018. Demographic and clinical outcomes were assessed. Primary outcomes were time from antiviral initiation to resolution of hypoxia and fever. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) care, ICU LOS, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 95 total patients, 52 received baloxavir and 43 received oseltamivir. Other than younger age (57.5 vs. 65; p = .035) and longer duration between vaccination and symptom onset (114 vs. 86 days; p = .001) in the baloxavir group, baseline characteristics did not differ. H1 was the predominant subtype in the baloxavir group (65.3%) versus H3 in the oseltamivir group (85.7%). When comparing baloxavir to oseltamivir, there was no significant difference in median time from antiviral initiation to resolution of hypoxia (59.9 vs. 42.5 h) and to resolution of fever (21.6 vs. 26.6 h). There were no differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Baloxavir was not associated with longer time to resolution of hypoxia or fever in comparison to oseltamivir. Results must be taken in context of variations in seasonal influenza subtype and resistance rates.

Outcomes of pregnant women exposed to Sotrovimab for the treatment of COVID-19 in the BA.1 Omicron predominant era (PRESTO).

BACKGROUND: Sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody with efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 including certain Omicron variants, has been used in treatment of mild-moderate COVID-19. Limited data exists regarding its use in pregnant women. METHODS: Electronic medical record review of pregnant COVID-19 patients treated with sotrovimab from 12/30/21 - 1/31/22 (Yale New Haven Health Hospital System [YNHHS]) was performed. Included were pregnant individuals ≥ 12 years, weighing ≥ 40 kg, with positive SARS-CoV-2 test (within 10 days). Those receiving care outside YNHHS or receiving other SARS-CoV-2 treatment were excluded. We assessed demographics, medical history, and Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score (MASS). The primary composite clinical outcome assessed included emergency department (ED) visit < 24 h, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and/or death within 29 days of sotrovimab. Secondarily, adverse feto-maternal outcomes and events for neonates were assessed at birth or through the end of the study period, which was 8/15/22. RESULTS: Among 22 subjects, median age was 32 years and body mass index was 27 kg/m2. 63% were Caucasian, 9% Hispanic, 14% African-American, and 9% Asian. 9% had diabetes and sickle cell disease. 5% had well-controlled HIV. 18%, 46%, and 36% received sotrovimab in trimester 1, 2, and 3, respectively. No infusion/allergic reactions occurred. MASS values were < 4. Only 12/22 (55%) received complete primary vaccination (46% mRNA-1273; 46% BNT162b2; 8% JNJ-78,436,735); none received a booster. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant COVID-19 patients receiving sotrovimab at our center tolerated it well with good clinical outcomes. Pregnancy and neonatal complications did not appear sotrovimab-related. Though a limited sample, our data helps elucidate the safety and tolerability of sotrovimab in pregnant women.

An outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 on a transplant unit in the early vaccination era.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant recipients are at increased risk of COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality. AIMS: We describe a nosocomial outbreak investigation on an immunocompromised inpatient unit. METHODS: Patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 were identified. An epidemiologic investigation was assisted with whole genome sequencing of positive samples. RESULTS: Two patients were identified as potential index cases; one presented with diarrhea and was initially not isolated, and the other developed hypoxemia on hospital day 18 before testing positive. Following identification of a SARS-CoV-2 cluster, the unit was closed and all patients and staff received surveillance testing revealing eight additional positive patients and staff members. Whole genome sequencing confirmed an outbreak. Enhanced infection prevention practices mitigated further spread. Asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 were successfully treated with bamlanivimab. DISCUSSION: Preventing SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in transplant units poses unique challenges as patients may have atypical presentations of COVID-19. Immunocompromised patients who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 while asymptomatic may benefit from monoclonal antibody therapy to prevent disease progression. All hospital staff members working with immunocompromised patients should be promptly encouraged to follow infection prevention behaviors and receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks on immunocompromised units can be mitigated through prompt identification of cases and robust infection prevention practices.

Combination Therapy of Chloramphenicol and Daptomycin for the Treatment of Infective Endocarditis Secondary to Multidrug Resistant Enterococcus faecium.

A 38-years-old female with an aortic valve replacement presented to an outside hospital (OSH) with fevers and malaise. Blood cultures revealed VRE which was resistant to linezolid, resistant to ampicillin, non-susceptible to daptomycin (MIC of 8 mcg/mL), and exhibited susceptibility to gentamicin. The patient was therefore initiated on intravenous (IV) daptomycin 6 mg/kg q24h and gentamicin IV 1 mg/kg q8h. However, after 14 days of therapy with daptomycin and gentamicin, the patient was transferred to our institution for the management of cardiogenic shock and hypoxemic respiratory failure. Given the concern for treatment failure, her antimicrobial regimen was changed to IV chloramphenicol 12.5 mg/kg every 6 hours with IV daptomycin 10 mg/kg every 48 hours given an estimated creatinine clearance of 30 mL/minutes. In vitro susceptibilities for chloramphenicol were performed which confirmed susceptibility. A transesophageal echocardiogram revealed a possible abscess at the left coronary cusp and aortic valve dehiscence. The patient underwent aortic valve replacement with aortic root reconstruction. The aortic valve culture grew VRE susceptible to linezolid but resistant to ampicillin and doxycycline. The patient was deemed clinically cured after 42 days of combination therapy with daptomycin and chloramphenicol. After 6 years of follow-up, the patient has not had a recurrent VRE infection. To our knowledge, this is the first case of endocarditis secondary to VRE that was successfully managed with the combination of daptomycin and chloramphenicol.

A Valid Warning or Clinical Lore: an Evaluation of Safety Outcomes of Remdesivir in Patients with Impaired Renal Function from a Multicenter Matched Cohort.

Per prescribing guidance, remdesivir is not recommended for SARS-CoV-2 in patients with renal disease given the absence of safety data in this patient population. This study was a multicenter, retrospective chart review of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 who received remdesivir. Safety outcomes were compared between patients with an estimated creatinine clearance (eCrCl) of <30 ml/min and an eCrCl of ≥30 ml/min. The primary endpoint was acute kidney injury (AKI) at the end of treatment (EOT). Of 359 patients who received remdesivir, 347 met inclusion criteria. Patients with an eCrCl of <30 ml/min were older {median, 80 years (interquartile range [IQR], 63.8 to 89) versus 62 (IQR, 54 to 74); P < 0.001}, were more likely to be on vasopressors on the day of remdesivir administration (30% versus 12.7%; P = 0.003), and were more likely to be mechanically ventilated during remdesivir therapy (27.5% versus 12.4%; P = 0.01) than those with an eCrCl of ≥30 ml/min. Despite these confounders, there was no significant difference in the frequency of EOT AKI (5% versus 2.3%; P = 0.283) or early discontinuation due to abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) (0% versus 3.9%; P = 0.374). Of the 5% of patients who developed EOT AKI on remdesivir with an eCrCl <30 ml/min, no cases were attributable to remdesivir administration per the treating physician. Comparable safety outcomes were observed when 1:1 nearest neighbor matching was applied to account for baseline confounders. In conclusion, remdesivir administration was not significantly associated with increased EOT AKI in patients with an eCrCl of <30 ml/min compared to patients with an eCrCl of ≥30 ml/min.

Intermediate-dose anticoagulation, aspirin, and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Thrombotic complications occur at high rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, yet the impact of intensive antithrombotic therapy on mortality is uncertain. We examined in-hospital mortality with intermediate- compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, and separately with in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy, in a large, retrospective study of 2785 hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients. In this analysis, we established two separate, nested cohorts of patients (a) who received intermediate- or prophylactic-dose anticoagulation ("anticoagulation cohort", N = 1624), or (b) who were not on home antiplatelet therapy and received either in-hospital aspirin or no antiplatelet therapy ("aspirin cohort", N = 1956). To minimize bias and adjust for confounding factors, we incorporated propensity score matching and multivariable regression utilizing various markers of illness severity and other patient-specific covariates, yielding treatment groups with well-balanced covariates in each cohort. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in-hospital death. Among propensity score-matched patients in the anticoagulation cohort (N = 382), in a multivariable regression model, intermediate- compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.518 [0.308-0.872]). Among propensity-score matched patients in the aspirin cohort (N = 638), in a multivariable regression model, in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.522 [0.336-0.812]). In this propensity score-matched, observational study of COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation and aspirin were each associated with a lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death.

Education needed to improve antimicrobial use during end-of-life care of older adults with advanced cancer: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial use during end-of-life care of older adults with advanced cancer is prevalent. Factors influencing the decision to prescribe antimicrobials during end-of-life care are not well defined. AIM: To evaluate factors influencing medicine subspecialists to prescribe intravenous and oral antimicrobials during end-of-life care of older adults with advanced cancer to guide an educational intervention. DESIGN: 18-item single-center cross-sectional survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient medicine subspecialists in 2018. RESULTS: Of 186 subspecialists surveyed, 67 (36%) responded. Most considered withholding antimicrobials at the time of clinical deterioration during hospitalization (n = 54/67, 81%), viewed the initiation of additional intravenous antimicrobials as escalation of care (n = 44/67, 66%), and believed decision-making should involve patients or surrogates and providers (n = 64/67, 96%). Fifty-one percent (n = 30/59) of respondents who conducted advance care planning did not discuss antimicrobials. Barriers to discussing end-of-life antimicrobials included the potential to overwhelm patients or families, challenges of withdrawing antimicrobials, and insufficient training. CONCLUSIONS: Although the initiation of additional intravenous antimicrobials was viewed as escalation of care, antimicrobials were not routinely discussed during advance care planning. Educational interventions that promote recognition of antimicrobial-associated adverse events, incorporate antimicrobial use into advance care plans, and offer communication simulation training around the role of antimicrobials during end-of-life care are warranted.

Three is a crowd: Clinical outcomes of a twice daily versus a thrice daily metronidazole dosing strategy from a multicenter study.

This was a multicenter, retrospective study of patients with anaerobic bacteremia comparing metronidazole 500 mg every 8 h versus 500 mg every 12 h. Of 782 patients reviewed, 85 met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in mortality, length of stay, or escalation of therapy between dosing strategies.

Orally Administered Human Immunoglobulin Therapy for Norovirus Enteritis in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Case Series at a Single Academic Transplant Center.

Norovirus enteritis can cause intractable diarrhea in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, for which there are no established treatments. We reviewed medical records of 9 SOT recipients at our center who received orally administered human immunoglobulin for norovirus enteritis, and it appeared to be an effective treatment modality.

Clinical outcomes of baloxavir versus oseltamivir in patients hospitalized with influenza A.

OBJECTIVES: To date, clinical trials evaluating baloxavir have excluded patients hospitalized with influenza infection and therefore this study sought to evaluate the efficacy of baloxavir in inpatients with influenza A. METHODS: This study was a multicentre, retrospective chart review of adult patients admitted to the hospital within the Yale New Haven Health System who received oseltamivir or baloxavir for the treatment of influenza A. Patients were screened for inclusion between January 2018 and April 2018 in the oseltamivir group, while patients in the baloxavir group were screened for inclusion between January 2019 and April 2019. Influenza A diagnosis was confirmed by RT-PCR using a nasopharyngeal swab specimen. RESULTS: Of the 2392 patients assessed, 790 met the inclusion criteria. There were 359 patients who received baloxavir and 431 patients who received oseltamivir. Patients who received baloxavir were younger compared with those who received oseltamivir [median = 69 (IQR = 57-81) years versus 77 (IQR = 62-86) years; P < 0.001]. Patients who received baloxavir had no significant difference in hospital length of stay [median = 4 (IQR = 3-6) days versus 5 (IQR = 3-6) days; P = 0.45] or 30 day all-cause mortality [12 (3.3%) versus 26 (6%); P = 0.079] compared with those who received oseltamivir. However, patients who received baloxavir had a significantly faster time to hypoxia resolution [median = 51.7 (IQR = 25.3-89.3) h versus 72 (IQR = 37.5-123) h; P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the use of baloxavir for the treatment of influenza A in hospitalized patients with the potential benefit of a faster time to resolution of hypoxia.

The impact of a multimodal approach to vancomycin discontinuation in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (HSCT) with febrile neutropenia (FN).

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend adding vancomycin to empiric treatment of FN in patients who meet specific criteria. After 48 hours, the guidelines recommend discontinuing vancomycin if resistant Gram-positive organisms are not identified. Based on these recommendations, a vancomycin stewardship team defined criteria for discontinuation of vancomycin at 48 hours and increased surveillance of vancomycin usage through a multimodal approach. The purpose of this retrospective analysis is to assess the impact of this multimodal approach on the discontinuation of empiric vancomycin at 48 hours in FN. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included a pre- and post-intervention cohort of 200 HSCT recipients with FN from 2015 to 2018. Criteria for continued vancomycin use beyond 48 hours included culture-documented resistant Gram-positive infection, positive Methicillin-Resistant S aureus (MRSA) nasal swab with evidence of pneumonia, or hemodynamic instability with concern for sepsis. The following patient characteristics were collected: previous MRSA infection, MRSA nasal swab collection and results, culture results, duration of vancomycin use, rationale for continuation of vancomycin beyond 48 hours, and re-initiation of vancomycin. RESULTS: In the post-intervention cohort, vancomycin discontinuation at 48 hours increased from 31% (95% CI 21.94-40.05) to 70% (95% CI 61.02-78.97; P < 0.0001). An additional 23% of vancomycin orders were discontinued at 72 hours. Off criteria vancomycin use decreased from 33% in pre to 1% in the post-implementation cohort. CONCLUSION: Establishing define criteria for vancomycin use in FN patients with a multimodal approach of physicians from hematology and infectious diseases, clinical pharmacists and the antibiotic stewardship team significantly improved vancomycin discontinuation.

Evaluating a voriconazole dose modification guideline to optimize dosing in patients with hematologic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Voriconazole is an azole antifungal utilized for prophylaxis and treatment of invasive fungal infections in hematologic patients. Previous studies have revealed decreased efficacy and increased toxicity with subtherapeutic <1 mcg/mL and supratherapeutic > 4 mcg/mL levels. A voriconazole dose modification guideline was introduced in July 2014 based on a retrospective analysis. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to evaluate the voriconazole dose modification guideline. Secondary objectives were to identify patient-specific characteristics that contribute to inadequate levels, adverse effects, and breakthrough invasive fungal infections. METHODS: This prospective study included 128 patients with 250 admissions who received voriconazole from July 2014 to February 2016. Eligible adult patients receiving voriconazole for prophylaxis or treatment with at least one trough level, drawn appropriately, were included. Demographics, adverse effects, and breakthrough invasive fungal infections were documented. RESULTS: Voriconazole use was categorized as: new start, new start with loading dose, or continuation of home therapy. The median initial levels were 1.5, 3.5, and 1.7 mcg/mL with 62% (73/119), 55% (6/11), and 60% (72/120) within the therapeutic range, respectively. Using the voriconazole dose modification guideline, 80% were within goal by the second dose adjustment. Age ≤ 30 and BMI ≤ 25 kg/m2 had higher rates of subtherapeutic levels in the new start cohorts (p = 0.024 and p = 0.009). Approximately 7.6% of patients experienced an adverse effect with neurologic/psychological being the most common. A total of 8.5% of patients had a possible, probable or proven breakthrough invasive fungal infections while on voriconazole. CONCLUSION: Using the voriconazole dose modification guideline, the number of patients that reached therapeutic range improved from 36% to 80% by the second dose adjustment (p = 0.007). This voriconazole dose modification guideline can be utilized to help dose and adjust voriconazole in order to achieve therapeutic levels.

Telavancin for refractory MRSA bacteraemia in intermittent haemodialysis recipients.

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring intermittent haemodialysis (IHD) are at high risk of MRSA bacteraemia (MRSA-B) and often fail first-line therapy. The safety, effectiveness and optimal dosing of telavancin for MRSA-B in this patient population are unclear. Objectives: We aimed to describe clinical outcomes of telavancin in the treatment of refractory MRSA-B in patients with ESRD requiring IHD. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study of hospitalized patients at two tertiary care academic medical centres with recurrent or persistent (≥3 days) MRSA-B treated with telavancin monotherapy. Outcomes included duration of MRSA-B (pre-telavancin versus post-telavancin) and microbiological failure (duration of MRSA-B ≥3 days after initiation of telavancin). Results: Telavancin dosed 10 mg/kg three times weekly post-IHD or 10 mg/kg every 48 h resulted in microbiological cure in 7/8 (87.5%) refractory MRSA-B cases. Telavancin monotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in median duration of bacteraemia [16 days pre-telavancin (IQR 8-19 days) versus 1 day post-telavancin (IQR 0-2 days); P = 0.018]. Telavancin was well tolerated by all patients and no adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Telavancin was very safe and highly effective in the treatment of refractory MRSA-B in a cohort of patients with ESRD requiring IHD. These data support the utility of telavancin in the armamentarium against refractory MRSA-B, particularly in the high-risk IHD-dependent population.

Utility of fosfomycin as antibacterial prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies.

PURPOSE: Prolonged and profound neutropenia is common among hematology and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients as a result of chemotherapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) currently recommend antibacterial prophylaxis in patients who are deemed at intermediate or high risk for infection. Specifically, fluoroquinolone prophylaxis should be considered for high-risk neutropenic patients. However, with prolonged and frequent exposure to fluoroquinolones, these high-risk patients may develop resistance to these agents. Patients may also have allergies or other contraindications which prohibit the use of fluoroquinolones for antibacterial prophylaxis. Unfortunately, there is no standard recommendation for alternative antimicrobial therapy in this patient population, as well as there is a lack of data to support the use of potential alternative agents. METHODS: Currently, Yale-New Haven Hospital utilizes fosfomycin for antibacterial prophylaxis in patients who are not eligible for fluoroquinolone therapy. The primary objective of this study was to assess the incidence of breakthrough infections in this population receiving fosfomycin. Secondary objectives included organisms identified, types of breakthrough infections, resistance patterns, and time from initiation to onset of fever. RESULTS: Of the 42 patients who received fosfomycin, 25 patients with 42 admissions met inclusion criteria. A total of 8 (19%) breakthrough infections occurred during the 42 admissions. Organisms included Klebsiella spp. (5), Streptococcus mitis/viridans (2), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (1), and coagulase-negative staphylococcus (1). Infections included the following: bacteremia (7), cellulitis (1), and urine (1). CONCLUSION: Given the low rate of breakthrough infections, fosfomycin may be a potential alternative option for antibacterial prophylaxis.

Dosing implications for liposomal amphotericin B in pregnancy.

Liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) is used in the treatment of opportunistic fungal and parasitic infections, including leishmaniasis. Given its lack of known teratogenicity in pregnancy, LAmB is a preferred agent for treatment for these patients. However, significant gaps remain in determining optimal dosing regimens for LAmB in pregnancy. We describe the use of LAmB for a pregnant patient with mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (MCL) using a dosing strategy of 5 mg/kg/day for days 1-7 using ideal body weight followed by 4 mg/kg weekly using adjusted body weight. We reviewed the literature for LAmB dosing strategies, particularly dosing weight, in pregnancy. Of the 143 cases identified in 17 studies, only one reported a dosing weight, in which ideal body weight was used. Five Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines in total discussed the use of amphotericin B in pregnancy but no guidelines included recommendations for dosing weight. This review describes our experience in using ideal body weight for dosing LAmB in pregnancy for the treatment of MCL. Use of ideal body weight may minimize risk of adverse effects to the fetus compared to the use of total body weight while maintaining efficacy for treatment of MCL in pregnancy.

Immunomodulatory Agents for Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pneumonia.

Morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 is due to severe inflammation and end-organ damage caused by a hyperinflammatory response. Multiple immunomodulatory agents to attenuate this response have been studied. Corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone, have been shown to reduce mortality in hospitalized patients who require supplemental oxygen. Interleukin-6 antagonist, tocilizimab, and Janus kinase inhibitors have also been shown to reduce mortality. However, patients who have severe pulmonary end-organ damage requiring mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation appear not to benefit from immunomodulatory therapies. This highlights the importance of appropriate timing to initiate immunomodulatory therapies in the management of severe COVID-19 disease.

An overview on the use of antivirals for the treatment of patients with COVID19 disease.

Introduction: There is an urgent need for safe and efficacious antiviral drugs to improve outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Understanding SARS-CoV-2 virology can elucidate potential drug targets for the inhibition of viral replication. Areas covered: This review offers insights into novel and repurposed drugs that may have activity against SARS-CoV-2. We searched the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov for COVID-19 related therapy until 28 October 2020. using search words 'SARS-CoV-2', 'COVID-19', 'antiviral', and/or 'treatment'. Expert opinion: Remdesivir decreased symptom duration modestly but had no significant impact on survival. Antivirals alone may be insufficient for a specific subset of patients with severe disease because of cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Treatment may require a combination of antivirals and immunomodulators to inhibit viral replication and CRS, respectively. A safe and efficacious SARS-CoV-2 specific vaccine is critical for prevention and mortality reduction. Moreover, we cannot overstate the importance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in testing of novel treatments. The pervasive stumbling block, however, is the low representation of minority groups. The benefit of remdesivir may not be generalizable to these populations because of significant underrepresentation in trials. Future endeavors should encompass the recruitment of patient populations that are reflective of the demographics significantly impacted by COVID-19.