Prolonged course of eravacycline leading to acute pancreatitis.

Eravacycline is the newest member of the broad-spectrum class of tetracycline antimicrobials. Pancreatitis has been previously associated with the tetracycline class of antibiotics, but, to our knowledge, we believe that this is the first reported case of eravacycline-induced pancreatitis. We describe a 46-year-old male who received eravacycline for treatment of a perirectal abscess. While the patient had slightly elevated lipase levels at baseline post-cardiopulmonary arrest, he developed abdominal pain and a further increase in lipase levels following 10 days of eravacycline, consistent with pancreatitis. Based on the Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale, eravacycline was the probable etiology of acute pancreatitis given improvement immediately after discontinuation. Clinicians should be aware of this potential adverse effect of eravacycline and should not initiate eravacycline in those with risk factors for acute pancreatic injury. However, acute pancreatitis should be suspected in all patients complaining of symptoms followed by immediate discontinuation of eravacycline.

Assessing clinical cure of empirical piperacillin/tazobactam for ESBL urinary tract infections (ACCEPT-UTI).

Background: Data are limited regarding use of piperacillin/tazobactam for ESBL urinary tract infections (UTIs). The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients treated empirically with piperacillin/tazobactam versus carbapenems for ESBL UTIs. Methods: This retrospective, observational, propensity score-matched study evaluated adults with an ESBL on urine culture. Patients who had UTI symptoms or leukocytosis, and who received a carbapenem or piperacillin/tazobactam empirically for at least 48 h were included. The primary outcome was clinical success within 48 h, defined as resolution of temperature (36-38°C), resolution of symptoms or leukocytosis (WBC <12 × 103/µL) in the absence of documented symptoms, and the absence of readmission for an ESBL UTI within 6 months. Secondary outcomes included time to clinical resolution, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital and 30 day all-cause mortality. Results: Overall, 223 patients were included in the full cohort and 200 patients in the matched cohort (piperacillin/tazobactam = 100, carbapenem = 100). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. There was no difference in the primary outcome of clinical success between the carbapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups (58% versus 56%, respectively; P = 0.76). Additionally, there was no difference in median (IQR) time to clinical resolution [38.9 h (21.5, 50.9 h) versus 40.3 h (27.4, 57.5 h); P = 0.37], in-hospital all-cause mortality (3% versus 3%; P = 1.00), or 30 day all-cause mortality (4% versus 2%; P = 0.68) between the carbapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam groups, respectively. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in clinical success for patients treated empirically with piperacillin/tazobactam compared with carbapenems for ESBL UTIs.

Residual Infusion Performance Evaluation (RIPE): A Single-Center Evaluation of Residual Volume Post-Intravenous Eravacycline Infusion.

Intravenous (IV) drugs are administered through infusion pumps and IV administration sets for patients who are seen in healthcare settings. There are multiple areas of the medication administration process that can influence the amount of a drug a patient receives. For example, IV administration sets that deliver a drug from an infusion bag to a patient vary in terms of length and bore. In addition, fluid manufacturers report that the total acceptable volume range for a 250 mL bag of normal saline can be anywhere from 265 to 285 mL. At the institution chosen for our study, each 50 mg vial of eravacycline is reconstituted using 5 mL of diluent, and the total dose is administered as a 250 mL admixture. This single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study evaluated the residual medication volume after the completion of an IV eravacycline infusion in patients admitted during the pre-intervention study period compared to those in the post-intervention study period. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the residual antibiotic volume remaining in the bags following IV infusions of eravacycline before and after the implementation of interventions. The secondary outcomes included the following: comparing the amount of the drug lost in the pre- and post-intervention periods, determining whether the amount of residual volume was affected by nursing shifts (day versus night), and lastly assessing the cost of facility drug waste. On average, approximately 15% of the total bag volume was not infused during the pre-intervention period, which was reduced to less than 5% in the post-intervention period. Clinically, the average estimated amount of eravacycline discarded decreased from 13.5 mg to 4.7 mg in the pre- and post-intervention periods, respectively. Following the statistically significant results of this study, the interventions were expanded at this facility to include all admixed antimicrobials. Further studies are needed to determine the potential clinical impact when patients do not receive complete antibiotic infusions.

A retrospective, multicentre evaluation of eravacycline utilisation in community and academic hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Eravacycline is a novel, fully-synthetic tetracycline approved by the FDA for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in August 2018. This study sought to characterise early clinical experience with this novel antibiotic. METHODS: Eravacycline utilisation for 66 patients was retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Eravacycline was used as monotherapy in 62.1% of cases. Mean duration of therapy was 13.1 ± 9.9 days. The majority (68.2%) of treatment was for off-label indications, including 34.8% for pulmonary and 28.8% for skin/soft tissue infections. A number of difficult-to-treat organisms were encountered: 50% of identified Gram-negative pathogens were resistant to carbapenems in vitro; and 48% of identified Gram-positive pathogens were resistant to vancomycin in vitro. The patient population had a high illness acuity, with 42.4% requiring ICU admission, 59.1% having ≥2 co-morbidities and 33.3% having ≥3 co-morbidities. Nevertheless, 95.5% experienced clinical improvement, with 86.4% achieving full infection resolution following eravacycline. Three patients who did not experience clinical improvement had an intra-abdominal source of infection without adequate source control. The remaining six who did not experience full infection resolution died from unrelated non-infectious causes during hospital admission. Adverse events were uncommon (4.5%), limited to nausea/vomiting, and not leading to eravacycline discontinuation. Although two patients had a history of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), no patients developed CDI while receiving eravacycline. CONCLUSION: These results illustrate the potential versatility of eravacycline with a broad activity spectrum, good safety and tolerability profile, flexibility for use in patients with renal injury or antibiotic allergies, and positive clinical outcomes in this real-world cohort.

Fidaxomicin Compared With Oral Vancomycin for the Treatment of Severe Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea: A Retrospective Review.

Purpose: The most recent published guidelines on Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) were released in 2017 and outline its treatment based on severity of the disease and recurrence; however, a clear first-line agent has not been recommended specifically for severe CDAD. Methods: This retrospective chart review was approved by the institutional review board and consisted of three community hospitals and one academic medical center. To be included, patients need to meet criteria for severe CDAD and receive at least 72 hours of therapy. Patients received either oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin, in addition to other therapies for CDAD, and differences in outcomes such as cost obtained from a common charge center, rates of recurrence, time to recurrence as measured at time of positive to negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, and mortality were assessed. Results: Of the 147 patients, 74 patients received fidaxomicin and 73 patients received oral vancomycin. The average hospitalization cost for patients receiving fidaxomicin was $129,338.69 and for patients receiving vancomycin was $153,563.81 (P = .26). Recurrence rates were lower with fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin (6.8% vs 17.6%; P = .047), and time to recurrence was longer with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin, but not statistically significant (96.8 ± 45.9 days vs 63.2 ± 66.9 days; P = .321). Mortality, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and overall length of stay were similar between the two therapies. Conclusions: In the treatment of severe CDAD, recurrence rates were lower and time to recurrence was higher with fidaxomicin compared with oral vancomycin. A clear financial benefit has yet to translate from these known findings.

Evaluation of the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections are a leading cause of death in the United States. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) encompasses >50% of all S aureus strains in infected hospitalized patients and increases mortality, length of stay and healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment of MRSA bacteremia with daptomycin, linezolid and vancomycin. METHODS: Patients with MRSA bacteremia between June 2008 and November 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. A microbiology laboratory report identified patients with ≥ 1 positive MRSA blood culture. Patients ≥ 18 years receiving daptomycin, linezolid or vancomycin for ≥ 7 consecutive days were included. Polymicrobial blood cultures and patients treated concomitantly with >1 anti-MRSA agent were excluded. RESULTS: Of 122 patients included, 53 received daptomycin, 15 received linezolid and 54 received vancomycin. Clinical and microbiologic cure rates were similar between daptomycin, linezolid and vancomycin (58.5% versus 60% versus 61.1%; 93.6% versus 100% versus 90%, respectively). Thirteen patients (daptomycin 4/24 versus linezolid 1/9 versus vancomycin 8/49, P = 0.5960) had recurrence while 12 patients had re-infection (daptomycin 5/42 versus linezolid 0/9 versus vancomycin 7/49, P = 0.4755). Treatment failure occurred in 11 patients treated with daptomycin, 4 with linezolid and 9 with vancomycin (P = 0.662). Compared with daptomycin and vancomycin, linezolid-treated patients had higher mortality (P = 0.0186). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in clinical or microbiologic cure rates was observed between groups. Daptomycin and vancomycin appear equally efficacious for MRSA bacteremia, whereas linezolid therapy was associated with higher mortality.