ß-Lactams plus doxycycline versus azithromycin for treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant source of hospital admissions and mortality. Atypical organisms are implicated in up to 40% of cases of CAP diagnoses. We studied the difference in outcomes of severe CAP patients treated with doxycycline versus azithromycin in addition to ß-lactam therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study from March 2020 to July 2022 in a medical ICU (MICU) of an academic quaternary medical center. Adults ≥18 years admitted to the MICU receiving doxycycline or azithromycin in addition to ß-lactam therapy for the treatment of CAP were included for analysis. The primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital length-of-stay, 30 day readmission, days of mechanical ventilation, escalation and duration of antibiotics, adverse effects such as Clostridioides difficile infection and QTc prolongation. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were in the azithromycin group and eighty-six patients in the doxycycline group. Both groups had similar APACHE IV and CURB-65 scores. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was higher for the doxycycline group compared with the azithromycin group (P = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital and 30 day mortality between the groups (P = 0.53, P = 0.57). There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: MICU patients with severe CAP who received doxycycline versus azithromycin in addition to ß-lactam treatment showed no significant differences in outcomes. These data offer support for inclusion of doxycycline as an alternative regimen in current IDSA recommendations.

Tocilizumab Versus Baricitinib for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Patients With Obesity.

Background: Tocilizumab and baricitinib have emerged as potential treatments for patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) following the findings of the Recovery Group and the results of the COV-BARRIER study. Unfortunately, there is a lack of guidance regarding the use of these agents in high-risk patients, such as those with obesity. Objective: To compare the outcomes of tocilizumab and baricitinib as potential treatments for obese patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Methods: This was a multi-center retrospective analysis comparing outcomes of obese patients who received the standard of care plus tocilizumab or baricitinib for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Included patients had a BMI >30 kg/m2, needed ICU level care, and required non-invasive or invasive ventilatory support. Results: This study included 64 patients who received tocilizumab and 69 patients who received baricitinib. When examining the primary outcome, patients who received tocilizumab had a shorter duration of ventilatory support (10.0 vs 15.0 days, P = .016) than patients who received baricitinib. Our secondary outcome of in-hospital mortality was lower in the tocilizumab group as well (23.4% vs 53.6%, P < .001). Tocilizumab was also associated with a non-significant reduction in new positive blood cultures (13.0% vs 3.1%, P = .056) and new invasive fungal infection (7.3% vs 1.6%, P = .210). Conclusions: This retrospective review showed a reduced duration of ventilatory support in obese patients who received tocilizumab vs baricitinib. In the future, additional studies should be conducted to further examine and confirm these results.

A Review of Push-Dose Vasopressors in the Peri-operative and Critical Care Setting.

During hospitalization, the risk of hypotension and associated sequelae remain important considerations for patient outcomes. The use of push-dose vasopressors (PDP) outside of the operating room has increased in recent years to combat the negative effects of hypotension. This narrative review evaluates the utility of PDP in its traditional perioperative setting as well as in areas of increasing use such as the emergency department and intensive care unit. Articles evaluating PDP highlight successful increases in blood pressure with all agents but differ in rates of adverse events and most lack direct comparison of PDP agents in regard to safety and efficacy. Agents utilized as PDP, including epinephrine, phenylephrine, norepinephrine, vasopressin, and ephedrine vary in mechanism of action, onset of action, and duration of action. These variations in pharmacology along with published literature may lead to differences in the preferred PDP for various clinical scenarios. Many adverse events associated with PDP have been due to dosing errors highlighting the importance of education surrounding the use of these agents. Additional research is necessary to further elucidate the risks and benefits of PDP in clinical practice, and to determine which PDP is truly preferred. Careful consideration should be given when determining the appropriateness of this administration method of vasopressors in various clinical scenarios.

Duration of Gram-negative antibiotic therapy in patients with pneumonia prior to and after the implementation of MRSA nasal swabs, an antimicrobial stewardship tool.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of MRSA PCR nasal swabs has been shown to decrease the use of anti-MRSA therapies through faster antibiotic de-escalation in patients with pneumonia. While this benefit has been shown exclusively in Gram-positive therapy, swab results may lead to additional antibiotic de-escalation discussions early on, potentially providing reduced durations or de-escalations of Gram-negative therapy as well. OBJECTIVES: To determine if early de-escalation discussions prompted by MRSA swab results lead to shorter durations of Gram-negative antibiotic therapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to compare pneumonia duration of Gram-negative therapy pre- and post-implementation of MRSA nasal swabs. Time to de-escalation, time to conversion to enteral therapy and cost were also compared between the groups. RESULTS: Data were collected for 240 patients overall, 120 in each group. The median duration of Gram-negative therapy was 154.0 h in the post-implementation group and 176.4 h in the pre-implementation group (P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in time to de-escalation (52.7 versus 54.9 h; P = 0.351) or time to transition from IV to enteral therapy (53.0 versus 57.3 h; P = 0.289). The median cost of Gram-negative regimens per patient was less expensive in the post-implementation group ($31.36 versus $45.90; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: MRSA nasal swabs as an antimicrobial stewardship tool were associated with a reduced overall duration of Gram-negative therapy and Gram-negative antibiotic regimen cost. This introduces an additional benefit of MRSA nasal swabs and further incentivizes their use as an antimicrobial stewardship tool.