Cost analysis of dalbavancin versus standard of care for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in two Italian hospitals.

Objectives: Thanks to its long half-life, dalbavancin qualifies as an optimal drug for saving costs. We aimed to assess the cost and effectiveness of dalbavancin versus the standard of care (SoC). Patients and methods: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study, including all hospitalized or outpatients diagnosed with ABSSSIs at Padua University Hospital, Padua and San Paolo Hospital, Milan (1 January 2016 to 31 July 2020). We compared patients according to antibiotic treatment (dalbavancin versus SoC), the number of lines of dalbavancin treatment, and monotherapy or combination (dalbavancin in association with other antibiotics). Primary endpoints were direct medical costs and length of hospital stay (LOS) associated with ABSSSI management; Student's t-test, chi-squared test and one-way ANOVA were used. Results: One hundred and twenty-six of 228 (55.3%) patients received SoC, while 102/228 (44.7%) received dalbavancin. Twenty-seven of the 102 (26.5%) patients received dalbavancin as first-line treatment, 46 (45.1%) as second-line, and 29 (28.4%) as third- or higher-line treatment. Most patients received dalbavancin as monotherapy (62/102; 60.8%). Compared with SoC, dalbavancin was associated with a significant reduction of LOS (5 ±â€Š7.47 days for dalbavancin, 9.2 ±â€Š5.59 days for SoC; P < 0.00001) and with lower mean direct medical costs (3470 ±â€Š2768€ for dalbavancin; 3493 ±â€Š1901€ for SoC; P = 0.9401). LOS was also reduced for first-line dalbavancin, in comparison with second-, third- or higher-line groups, and for dalbavancin monotherapy versus combination therapy. Mean direct medical costs were significantly lower in first-line dalbavancin compared with higher lines, but no cost difference was observed between monotherapy and combination therapy. Conclusions: Monotherapy with first-line dalbavancin was confirmed as a promising strategy for ABSSSIs in real-life settings, thanks to its property in reducing LOS and saving direct medical costs.

Efficacy and safety of dalbavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) and other infections in a real-life setting: data from an Italian observational multicentric study (DALBITA study).

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dalbavancin in ABSSSI and 'other sites' infections' (OTA). METHODS: Observational study involving 11 Italian hospitals including patients that received ≥1 dose of dalbavancin in 2016-2019. The outcome was end-of-treatment efficacy and safety in ABSSSI and OTA in a real-life setting. RESULTS: 206 patients enrolled (males 50%, median age 62 [IQR 50-76] years), 60.2% ABSSSI, 39.8% OTA. 69.7% ABSSSI vs 90.7% OTA (p = 0.003) and 46.3% ABSSSI vs 37.2% OTA (p = 0.786) received previous and concomitant antibiotics, respectively. 82.5% reached clinical cure . Eleven (5.4%) patients had non-serious adverse events (AE). OTA patients showed longer hospitalization (13.5 days, 5.5-22 vs 3, 0-11.7; p<0.0001) and received longer previous (18 days, 9-30 vs 11, 7-19; p = 0.007)/concomitant antibiotic treatments (21 days, 14-52 vs 11, 8-14; p < 0.0001), compared to ABSSSI. ABSSSI and OTA showed similar efficacy (85.5% vs 75%, p = 0.459) and safety (no AE: 81.5% vs 64.3%, p = 0.258); efficacy was independent of previous/concomitant therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Dalbavancin demonstrated a success rate of >80%, with similar efficacy/safety in ABSSSI and off-label indications. The preferential use of dalbavancin as second-line or combination therapy would seem to suggest the need for in-depth studies focused on its off-label use.

Clinical Experience with Ceftazidime-Avibactam for the Treatment of Infections due to Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Other than Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales.

BACKGROUND: Experience in real clinical practice with ceftazidime-avibactam for the treatment of serious infections due to gram-negative bacteria (GNB) other than carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) is very limited. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective multicenter study of patients hospitalized in 13 Italian hospitals who received ≤72 h of ceftazidime-avibactam for GNB other than CRE to assess the rates of clinical success, resistance development, and occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: Ceftazidime-avibactam was used to treat 41 patients with GNB infections other than CRE. Median age was 62 years and 68% of them were male. The main causative agents were P.aeruginosa (33/41; 80.5%) and extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacterales (4/41, 9.8%). Four patients had polymicrobial infections. All strains were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam. The most common primary infection was nosocomial pneumonia (n = 20; 48.8%), primary bacteremia (n = 7; 17.1%), intra-abdominal infection (n = 4; 9.8%), and bone infection (n = 4; 9.8%). Ceftazidime-avibactam was mainly administered as a combination treatment (n = 33; 80.5%) and the median length of therapy was 13 days. Clinical success at the end of the follow-up period was 90.5%, and the only risk factor for treatment failure at multivariate analysis was receiving continuous renal replacement therapy during ceftazidime-avibactam. There was no association between clinical failures and type of primary infection, microbiological isolates, and monotherapy with ceftazidime-avibactam. Only one patient experienced recurrent infection 5 days after the end of treatment. Development of resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam was not detected in any case during the whole follow-up period. No adverse events related to ceftazidime-avibactam were observed in the study population. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam may be a valuable therapeutic option for serious infections due to GNB other than CRE.