Antifungal use via outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy.

BACKGROUND: Antifungal administration via outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is infrequent. As patients with invasive fungal infections (IFIs) receiving OPAT are at high risk of readmissions, careful, risk-based patient selection and monitoring is important. OBJECTIVES: To describe our experience managing IFIs via OPAT, including assessment of risk factors associated with unplanned readmissions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of outpatients from two tertiary hospitals in Western Australia managed with parenteral antifungals for the treatment of IFIs from 2012 to 2020. Outcomes assessed were unplanned OPAT-related readmissions; adverse events and achievement of treatment aim at the completion of OPAT. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were included, encompassing 696 OPAT days. Twenty-three (50%) patients received intravenous (IV) liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), 23 (50%) received IV echinocandins and one (2%) patient received IV fluconazole. One patient received both IV L-AmB and an echinocandin. Unplanned OPAT-related readmissions occurred in 13 (28%) patients and any adverse event occurred in 19 (41%), most commonly nephrotoxicity amongst patients receiving L-AmB. On univariate analysis, unplanned OPAT-related readmissions were more common in Mucorales infection, L-AmB doses of ≥5 mg/kg and otorhinolaryngologic (ENT) infections. At the completion of OPAT, attainment of treatment aims occurred in 28 (61%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving parenteral antifungals via OPAT experience high rates of unplanned readmissions and adverse events. Risk factor identification may facilitate optimal patient selection and establishment of treatment aims.

Exploring beyond the limit: How comparative stochastic performance affects retesting outcomes in six commercial SARS CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests.

Objectives: To examine the comparative stochasticity profile of six commercial SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and how this may affect retesting paradigms. Methods: Commercial quality control (QC) material was serially diluted in viral transport media to create a panel covering 10-10,000 copies/ml. The panel was tested across six commercial NAATs. A subset of high cycle threshold results was retested on a rapid PCR assay to simulate retesting protocols commonly used to discriminate false positives. Results: Performance beyond the LOD differed among assays, with three types of stochasticity profiles observed. The ability of the rapid PCR assay to reproduce a true weak positive specimen was restricted to its own stochastic performance at the corresponding viral concentration. Conclusion: Stochastic performance of various NAATs overlap across low viral concentrations and affect retesting outcomes. Relying on retesting alone to discriminate false positives risk missing true positives even when a more sensitive assay is deployed for confirmatory testing.