Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.

Importance: Practice guidelines often provide recommendations in which the strength of the recommendation is dissociated from the quality of the evidence. Objective: To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial infective endocarditis (IE) that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength. Evidence Review: This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In April 2022 a call to new and existing members was released electronically (social media and email) for the next WikiGuidelines topic, and subsequently, topics and questions related to the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial IE were crowdsourced and prioritized by vote. For each topic, PubMed literature searches were conducted including all years and languages. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were crafted discussing the risks and benefits of different approaches. Findings: A total of 51 members from 10 countries reviewed 587 articles and submitted information relevant to 4 sections: establishing the diagnosis of IE (9 questions); multidisciplinary IE teams (1 question); prophylaxis (2 questions); and treatment (5 questions). Of 17 unique questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for 1 question: 3 randomized clinical trials have established that oral transitional therapy is at least as effective as intravenous (IV)-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuideline method for clinical guideline development, oral transitional therapy was at least as effective as IV-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Several randomized clinical trials are underway to inform other areas of practice, and further research is needed.

Pharmacokinetics of ampicillin during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A case report.

The presence of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in addition to underlying critical illness can affect the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs that are often required to treat this patient population. While ampicillin is the preferred agent for the treatment of susceptible Enterococcus faecalis infections, there are no in vivo pharmacokinetic studies regarding ampicillin dosing in patients receiving ECMO. This case report consists of two patients on venovenous ECMO with E. faecalis bloodstream infections in which ampicillin serum concentrations were measured. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a one compartment open model. Ampicillin trough levels were 5.87 and 39.2 mg/L for patients A and B, respectively. Based on these results, ampicillin concentrations were found to be above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for 100% of the dosing interval. The findings of this case report demonstrate that therapeutic concentrations of ampicillin can be obtained in patients on ECMO and therapeutic drug monitoring can be utilized to ensure adequate serum concentrations are achieved.

Fidaxomicin to prevent recurrent Clostridioides difficile: what will it cost in the USA and Canada?

Importance: Recent changes in guidelines for managing Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) have placed fidaxomicin as a first-line treatment. Objective: To estimate the net cost of first-line fidaxomicin compared to vancomycin in the American and Canadian healthcare systems and to estimate the price points at which fidaxomicin would become cost saving for the prevention of recurrence. Data sources and study selection: We identified randomized, placebo-controlled trials directly comparing fidaxomicin with vancomycin that reported on recurrence. Medication costs were obtained from the Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule (US) and the Quebec drug formulary (Canada). The average cost of a CDI recurrence was established through a systematic review for each country. Data extraction synthesis and outcome measures: For efficacy, data on CDI recurrence at day 40 were pooled using a restricted maximal likelihood random effects model. For the cost review, the mean cost across identified studies was adjusted to reflect May 2022 dollars. These were used to estimate the net cost per recurrence prevented with fidaxomicin and the price point below which fidaxomicin would be cost saving. Results: The estimated mean system costs of a CDI recurrence were $15 147USD and $8806CAD, respectively. Preventing one recurrence by using first-line fidaxomicin over vancomycin would cost $38 222USD (95%CI $30 577-$57 332) and $13 760CAD (95%CI $11 008-$20 640), respectively. The probability that fidaxomicin was cost saving exceeded 95% if priced below $1140USD or $860CAD, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: An increased drug expenditure on fidaxomicin may not be offset through recurrence prevention unless the fidaxomicin price is negotiated.

Impact of a Laboratory-Developed Phenotypic Rapid Susceptibility Test Directly From Positive Blood Cultures on Time to Narrowest Effective Therapy in Patients With Gram-Negative Bacteremia: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

Background: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is often needed prior to antimicrobial optimization for patients with gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSIs). Rapid AST (rAST) in combination with antimicrobial stewardship (AS) may decrease time to administration of narrower antibiotics. Methods: This was a prospective, nonblinded, randomized trial evaluating the impact of a phenotypic rAST method vs conventional AST (cAST) in hospitalized patients with GN-BSI and source control. The primary outcome was time to narrowest effective therapy. Results: Two hundred seventy-four patients were randomized and 205 underwent analysis (97 cAST, 108 rAST). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to susceptibility results was 23 hours shorter in the rAST group (cAST: 62 [59-67] hours vs rAST: 39 [IQR, 35-46] hours; P < .001). Median (IQR) time to narrowest effective therapy was similar between groups (cAST: 73 [44-138] hours vs rAST: 64 [42-92] hours; P = .10). Median (IQR) time to narrowest effective therapy was significantly shorter in a prespecified subgroup of patients not initially on narrowest therapy and during AS working hours (cAST: 93 [56-154] hours vs rAST: 62 [43-164] hours; P = .004). Significant decreases were observed in median (IQR) time to oral therapy (cAST: 126 [76-209] hours vs rAST: 91 [66-154] hours; P = .02) and median (IQR) length of hospital stay (cAST: 7 [4-13] days vs rAST: 5 [4-8] days; P = .04). Conclusions: In patients with GN-BSI, rAST did not significantly decrease time to narrowest effective therapy but did decrease time to oral antibiotics and length of hospital stay. Rapid AST using existing microbiology platforms has potential to optimize patient outcomes.

Use of Novel Strategies to Develop Guidelines for Management of Pyogenic Osteomyelitis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.

Importance: Traditional approaches to practice guidelines frequently result in dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Objective: To construct a clinical guideline for pyogenic osteomyelitis management, with a new standard of evidence to resolve the gap between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence, through the use of a novel open access approach utilizing social media tools. Evidence Review: This consensus statement and systematic review study used a novel approach from the WikiGuidelines Group, an open access collaborative research project, to construct clinical guidelines for pyogenic osteomyelitis. In June 2021 and February 2022, authors recruited via social media conducted multiple PubMed literature searches, including all years and languages, regarding osteomyelitis management; criteria for article quality and inclusion were specified in the group's charter. The GRADE system for evaluating evidence was not used based on previously published concerns regarding the potential dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Instead, the charter required that clear recommendations be made only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were drafted to discuss pros and cons of care choices. Both clear recommendations and clinical reviews were planned with the intention to be regularly updated as new data become available. Findings: Sixty-three participants with diverse expertise from 8 countries developed the group's charter and its first guideline on pyogenic osteomyelitis. These participants included both nonacademic and academic physicians and pharmacists specializing in general internal medicine or hospital medicine, infectious diseases, orthopedic surgery, pharmacology, and medical microbiology. Of the 7 questions addressed in the guideline, 2 clear recommendations were offered for the use of oral antibiotic therapy and the duration of therapy. In addition, 5 clinical reviews were authored addressing diagnosis, approaches to osteomyelitis underlying a pressure ulcer, timing for the administration of empirical therapy, specific antimicrobial options (including empirical regimens, use of antimicrobials targeting resistant pathogens, the role of bone penetration, and the use of rifampin as adjunctive therapy), and the role of biomarkers and imaging to assess responses to therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: The WikiGuidelines approach offers a novel methodology for clinical guideline development that precludes recommendations based on low-quality data or opinion. The primary limitation is the need for more rigorous clinical investigations, enabling additional clear recommendations for clinical questions currently unresolved by high-quality data.

Remdesivir and Mortality in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The impact of remdesivir (RDV) on mortality rates in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, and the mortality effect in subgroups of baseline disease severity has been incompletely explored. The purpose of this study was to assess the association of RDV with mortality rates in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we compared persons receiving RDV with those receiving best supportive care (BSC). Patients hospitalized between 28 February and 28 May 2020 with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were included with the development of COVID-19 pneumonia on chest radiography and hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen or oxygen saturation ≤94% with room air. The primary outcome was overall survival, assessed with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression and multivariable adjustment, including calendar time, baseline patient characteristics, corticosteroid use, and random effects for hospital. RESULTS: A total of 1138 patients were enrolled, including 286 who received RDV and 852 treated with BSC, 400 of whom received hydroxychloroquine. Corticosteroids were used in 20.4% of the cohort (12.6% in RDV and 23% in BSC). Comparing persons receiving RDV with those receiving BSC, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for death was 0.46 (.31-.69) in the univariate model (P < .001) and 0.60 (.40-.90) in the risk-adjusted model (P = .01). In the subgroup of persons with baseline use of low-flow oxygen, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for death in RDV compared with BSC was 0.63 (.39-1.00; P = .049). CONCLUSION: Treatment with RDV was associated with lower mortality rates than BSC. These findings remain the same in the subgroup with baseline use of low-flow oxygen.

Enhanced Detection of Community-Acquired Pneumonia Pathogens With the BioFire® Pneumonia FilmArray® Panel.

BACKGROUND: Although most observational studies identify viral or bacterial pathogens in 50% or less of patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we previously demonstrated that a multi-test bundle (MTB) detected a potential pathogen in 73% of patients. This study compares detection rates for potential pathogens with the MTB versus the Biofire® Pneumonia FilmArray® panel (BPFA) multiplex PCR platform and presents an approach for integrating BPFA results as a foundation for subsequent antibiotic stewardship (AS) activities. METHODS: Between January 2017 to March 2018, all patients admitted for CAP were enrolled. Patients were considered evaluable if all elements of the MTB and the BPFA were completed, and they met other a priori inclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was the percentage of potential pathogens detected using the MTB (8 viral and 6 bacterial targets) versus the BPFA (8 viral and 18 bacterial targets). Blood and sputum cultures were performed on all patients. Two or more procalcitonin (PCT) levels assisted clinical assessments as to whether detected bacteria were invading or colonizing. RESULTS: Of 585 enrolled patients, 274 were evaluable. A potential viral pathogen was detected in 40.5% with MTB versus 60.9% of patients with BPFA with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 9.00 (4.12 to 23.30) p<0.01. A potential bacterial pathogen was identified in 66.4% with the MTB vs 75.5% with the BPFA odds ratio (95% CI) of 2.09 (1.24 to 3.59), p 0.003). Low PCT levels helped identify detected bacteria as colonizers.