Effect of tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide on the normal gut microbiota of a healthy adult population in Sweden: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobials cause perturbations in the composition and diversity of the host microbiome. We aimed to compare gut microbiome perturbations caused by oral tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide (a novel carbapenem) and by amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (an orally administered ß-lactam-ß-lactam inhibitor combination widely used in clinical practice). METHODS: We did a phase 1, single-centre, randomised, parallel-group, active-control trial to evaluate the effect of tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide on the human gut microbiota. Healthy participants aged 18 years or older with no documented illnesses during recruitment were enrolled at Karolinska University Hospital (Stockholm, Sweden). Study participants were stratified by sex and block-randomised in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with either tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide (600 mg orally every 8 h) or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (500 mg amoxicillin and 125 mg clavulanic acid orally every 8 h). The study included 10 days of treatment (days 1-10) and four follow-up visits (days 14, 21, 90, and 180). The trial was open-label for clinical investigators and patients, but masked for microbiology investigators. Faecal samples were collected at all visits. Sequencing of 16S rDNA was used to measure the diversity metrics, and quantitative culture to quantify selected taxa. The primary outcomes were changes in the α and ß diversity and log count of colony-forming units for selected taxa between samples compared with baseline (day 1), and whether any changes reverted during the follow-up period. The analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04376554). FINDINGS: The study was conducted between Jan 23, 2020, and April 6, 2021. 49 volunteers were screened for eligibility, among whom 30 evaluable participants (14 men and 16 women) were assigned: 15 (50%) to the tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide group and 15 (50%) to the amoxicillin-clavulanic acid group. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Complete follow-up was available for all participants, and all participants except one completed treatment as assigned. The diversity metrics showed significant changes from baseline during the treatment period. Significant decreases in richness were observed on days 4-10 (p≤0·0011) in the amoxicillin-clavulanic acid group and on days 4-14 (p≤0·0019) in the tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide group. Similarly, evenness was significantly decreased during treatment in the amoxicillin-clavulanic acid group (day 4, p=0·030) and the tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide group (days 4-10, p<0·0001) compared with baseline. Quantitative cultures showed significant decreases in Enterobacterales (days 4-7, p≤0·0030), Enterococcus spp (days 4-14, p=0·025 to p<0·0001), Bifidobacterium spp (days 2-4, p≤0·026), and Bacteroides spp (days 4-10, p≤0·030) in the tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide group. Similarly, in amoxicillin-clavulanic acid recipients, significant changes were observed in Enterobacterales (days 4-10, p≤0·048), Bifidobacterium spp (days 2-4, p≤0·013), and Lactobacillus spp (days 2-4, p≤0·020). Samples from the follow-up period were not significantly different from those at baseline in ß diversity analysis (PERMANOVA, p>0·99). By the end of the study, no significant change was observed compared with baseline in either group. There were no deaths or severe adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The impact of tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide on the gut microbiome was similar to that of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. The safety of antibiotic use with regard to the microbiome should be given attention, as dysbiosis is associated with health and disease. FUNDING: Spero Therapeutics.

Cefepime-Taniborbactam in Complicated Urinary Tract Infection.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales species and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa are global health threats. Cefepime-taniborbactam is an investigational ß-lactam and ß-lactamase inhibitor combination with activity against Enterobacterales species and P. aeruginosa expressing serine and metallo-ß-lactamases. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned hospitalized adults with complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), including acute pyelonephritis, in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravenous cefepime-taniborbactam (2.5 g) or meropenem (1 g) every 8 hours for 7 days; this duration could be extended up to 14 days in case of bacteremia. The primary outcome was both microbiologic and clinical success (composite success) on trial days 19 to 23 in the microbiologic intention-to-treat (microITT) population (patients who had a qualifying gram-negative pathogen against which both study drugs were active). A prespecified superiority analysis of the primary outcome was performed after confirmation of noninferiority. RESULTS: Of the 661 patients who underwent randomization, 436 (66.0%) were included in the microITT population. The mean age of the patients was 56.2 years, and 38.1% were 65 years of age or older. In the microITT population, 57.8% of the patients had complicated UTI, 42.2% had acute pyelonephritis, and 13.1% had bacteremia. Composite success occurred in 207 of 293 patients (70.6%) in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and in 83 of 143 patients (58.0%) in the meropenem group. Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem regarding the primary outcome (treatment difference, 12.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 22.2; P = 0.009). Differences in treatment response were sustained at late follow-up (trial days 28 to 35), when cefepime-taniborbactam had higher composite success and clinical success. Adverse events occurred in 35.5% and 29.0% of patients in the cefepime-taniborbactam group and the meropenem group, respectively, with headache, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, and nausea the most frequently reported; the frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime-taniborbactam was superior to meropenem for the treatment of complicated UTI that included acute pyelonephritis, with a safety profile similar to that of meropenem. (Funded by Venatorx Pharmaceuticals and others; CERTAIN-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03840148.).

Oral Lefamulin vs Moxifloxacin for Early Clinical Response Among Adults With Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: The LEAP 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: New antibacterials are needed to treat community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) because of growing antibacterial resistance and safety concerns with standard care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of a 5-day oral lefamulin regimen in patients with CABP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase 3, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted at 99 sites in 19 countries that included adults aged 18 years or older with a Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class of II, III, or IV; radiographically documented pneumonia; acute illness; 3 or more CABP symptoms; and 2 or more vital sign abnormalities. The first patient visit was on August 30, 2016, and patients were followed up for 30 days; the final follow-up visit was on January 2, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral lefamulin (600 mg every 12 hours for 5 days; n = 370) or moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours for 7 days; n = 368). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) primary end point was early clinical response at 96 hours (within a 24-hour window) after the first dose of either study drug in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients). Responders were defined as alive, showing improvement in 2 or more of the 4 CABP symptoms, having no worsening of any CABP symptoms, and not receiving any nonstudy antibacterial drug for current CABP episode. The European Medicines Agency coprimary end points (FDA secondary end points) were investigator assessment of clinical response at test of cure (5-10 days after last dose) in the modified ITT population and in the clinically evaluable population. The noninferiority margin was 10% for early clinical response and investigator assessment of clinical response. RESULTS: Among 738 randomized patients (mean age, 57.5 years; 351 women [47.6%]; 360 had a PORT risk class of III or IV [48.8%]), 707 (95.8%) completed the trial. Early clinical response rates were 90.8% with lefamulin and 90.8% with moxifloxacin (difference, 0.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -4.4% to ∞]). Rates of investigator assessment of clinical response success were 87.5% with lefamulin and 89.1% with moxifloxacin in the modified ITT population (difference, -1.6% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -6.3% to ∞]) and 89.7% and 93.6%, respectively, in the clinically evaluable population (difference, -3.9% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -8.2% to ∞]) at test of cure. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal (diarrhea: 45/368 [12.2%] in lefamulin group and 4/368 [1.1%] in moxifloxacin group; nausea: 19/368 [5.2%] in lefamulin group and 7/368 [1.9%] in moxifloxacin group). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with CABP, 5-day oral lefamulin was noninferior to 7-day oral moxifloxacin with respect to early clinical response at 96 hours after first dose. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02813694; European Clinical Trials Identifier: 2015-004782-92.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous-to-oral Lefamulin, a Pleuromutilin Antibiotic, for the Treatment of Community-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: The Phase III Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lefamulin, a pleuromutilin antibiotic, is active against pathogens commonly causing community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). The Lefamulin Evaluation Against Pneumonia (LEAP 1) study was a global noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lefamulin for the treatment of CABP. METHODS: In this double-blind study, adults with CABP of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team risk class ≥III were randomized 1:1 to receive lefamulin at 150 mg intravenously (IV) every 12 hours or moxifloxacin at 400 mg IV every 24 hours. After 6 doses, patients could be switched to an oral study drug if prespecified improvement criteria were met. If methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was suspected, either linezolid or placebo was added to moxifloxacin or lefamulin, respectively. The US Food and Drug Administration primary endpoint was an early clinical response (ECR) 96 ± 24 hours after the first dose of the study drug in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (noninferiority margin, 12.5%). The European Medicines Agency co-primary endpoints were an investigator assessment of clinical response (IACR) 5-10 days after the last dose of the study drug in the modified ITT (mITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations (noninferiority margin, 10%). RESULTS: There were 551 patients randomized (n = 276 lefamulin; n = 275 moxifloxacin). Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for ECR (87.3% vs 90.2%, respectively; difference -2.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] g -8.5 to 2.8) and IACR (mITT, 81.7% vs 84.2%, respectively; difference -2.6%, 95% CI -8.9 to 3.9; CE, 86.9% vs 89.4%, respectively; difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.4 to 3.4). Rates of study drug discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events were 2.9% for lefamulin and 4.4% for moxifloxacin. CONCLUSIONS: Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin for the primary efficacy endpoints and was generally safe and well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02559310.

Clinical activity of ceftazidime/avibactam against MDR Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: pooled data from the ceftazidime/avibactam Phase III clinical trial programme.

Objectives: This analysis evaluated the clinical activity of ceftazidime/avibactam against MDR Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates pooled from the adult Phase III clinical trials in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) or nosocomial pneumonia (NP) including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Methods: Baseline isolates from five Phase III randomized controlled trials of ceftazidime/avibactam versus predominantly carbapenem comparators in patients with cIAI (RECLAIM 1 and 2; NCT01499290 and RECLAIM 3; NCT01726023), cUTI (RECAPTURE 1 and 2; NCT01595438 and NCT01599806), NP including VAP (REPROVE; NCT01808092) and cIAI or cUTI caused by ceftazidime-non-susceptible Gram-negative pathogens (REPRISE; NCT01644643) were tested for MDR status and susceptibility to ceftazidime/avibactam and carbapenem-based comparators using CLSI broth microdilution methodology. Microbiological and clinical responses for patients with ≥1 MDR Enterobacteriaceae or P. aeruginosa isolate were assessed at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Results: In the pooled microbiologically modified ITT population, 1051 patients with MDR Enterobacteriaceae and 95 patients with MDR P. aeruginosa isolates were identified. Favourable microbiological response rates at TOC for all MDR Enterobacteriaceae and MDR P. aeruginosa were 78.4% and 57.1%, respectively, for ceftazidime/avibactam and 71.6% and 53.8%, respectively, for comparators. The proportions of patients with ≥1 MDR isolate who were clinically cured at TOC were similar in the ceftazidime/avibactam (85.4%) and comparator (87.9%) arms. Conclusions: Ceftazidime/avibactam demonstrated similar clinical efficacy to predominantly carbapenem comparators against MDR Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa, and may be a suitable alternative to carbapenem-based therapies for cIAI, cUTI and NP/VAP caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens.

Ceftazidime-avibactam Versus Doripenem for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections, Including Acute Pyelonephritis: RECAPTURE, a Phase 3 Randomized Trial Program.

BACKGROUND: The global emergence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae highlights the urgent need to reduce carbapenem dependence. The phase 3 RECAPTURE program compared the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam and doripenem in patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis. METHODS: Hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed cUTI/acute pyelonephritis were randomized 1:1 to ceftazidime-avibactam 2000 mg/500 mg every 8 hours or doripenem 500 mg every 8 hours (doses adjusted for renal function), with possible oral antibiotic switch after ≥5 days (total treatment duration up to 10 days or 14 days for patients with bacteremia). RESULTS: Of 1033 randomized patients, 393 and 417 treated with ceftazidime-avibactam and doripenem, respectively, were eligible for the primary efficacy analyses; 19.6% had ceftazidime-nonsusceptible baseline pathogens. Noninferiority of ceftazidime-avibactam vs doripenem was demonstrated for the US Food and Drug Administration co-primary endpoints of (1) patient-reported symptomatic resolution at day 5: 276 of 393 (70.2%) vs 276 of 417 (66.2%) patients (difference, 4.0% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -2.39% to 10.42%]); and (2) combined symptomatic resolution/microbiological eradication at test of cure (TOC): 280 of 393 (71.2%) vs 269 of 417 (64.5%) patients (difference, 6.7% [95% CI, .30% to 13.12%]). Microbiological eradication at TOC (European Medicines Agency primary endpoint) occurred in 304 of 393 (77.4%) ceftazidime-avibactam vs 296 of 417 (71.0%) doripenem patients (difference, 6.4% [95% CI, .33% to 12.36%]), demonstrating superiority at the 5% significance level. Both treatments showed similar efficacy against ceftazidime-nonsusceptible pathogens. Ceftazidime-avibactam had a safety profile consistent with that of ceftazidime alone. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam was highly effective for the empiric treatment of cUTI (including acute pyelonephritis), and may offer an alternative to carbapenems in this setting. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01595438; NCT01599806.

Ceftazidime-avibactam or best available therapy in patients with ceftazidime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa complicated urinary tract infections or complicated intra-abdominal infections (REPRISE): a randomised, pathogen-directed, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Carbapenems are frequently the last line of defence in serious infections due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, but their use is threatened by the growing prevalence of carbapenemase-producing pathogens. Ceftazidime-avibactam is a potential new agent for use in such infections. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ceftazidime-avibactam compared with best available therapy in patients with complicated urinary tract infection or complicated intra-abdominal infection due to ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogens. METHODS: REPRISE was a pathogen-directed, international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that recruited patients from hospitals across 16 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18-90 years with complicated urinary tract infection or complicated intra-abdominal infection caused by ceftazidime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae or Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Patients were randomised (1:1) to 5-21 days of treatment with either ceftazidime-avibactam (a combination of 2000 mg ceftazidime plus 500 mg avibactam, administered via a 2-h intravenous infusion every 8 h) or best available therapy. The primary endpoint was clinical response at the test-of-cure visit, 7-10 days after last infusion of study therapy, analysed in all patients who had at least one ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen, as confirmed by the central laboratory, and who received at least one dose of study drug. Safety endpoints were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01644643. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2013, and Aug 29, 2014, 333 patients were randomly assigned, 165 to ceftazidime-avibactam and 168 to best available therapy. Of these, 154 assigned to ceftazidime-avibactam (144 with complicated urinary tract infection and ten with complicated intra-abdominal infection) and 148 assigned to best available therapy (137 with complicated urinary tract infection and 11 with complicated intra-abdominal infection) were analysed for the primary outcome. 163 (97%) of 168 patients in the best available therapy group received a carbapenem, 161 (96%) as monotherapy. The overall proportions of patients with a clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit were similar with ceftazidime-avibactam (140 [91%; 95% CI 85·6-94·7] of 154 patients) and best available therapy (135 [91%; 85·9-95·0] of 148 patients). 51 (31%) of 164 patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam group and 66 (39%) of 168 in the best available therapy group had an adverse event, most of which were mild or moderate in intensity. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events with both ceftazidime-avibactam (21 [13%] of 164 patients) and best available therapy (30 [18%] of 168 patients). No new safety concerns were identified for ceftazidime-avibactam. INTERPRETATION: These results provide evidence of the efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam as a potential alternative to carbapenems in patients with ceftazidime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and P aeruginosa. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Efficacy and Safety of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Plus Metronidazole Versus Meropenem in the Treatment of Complicated Intra-abdominal Infection: Results From a Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Program.

BACKGROUND: When combined with ceftazidime, the novel non-ß-lactam ß-lactamase inhibitor avibactam provides a carbapenem alternative against multidrug-resistant infections. Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole were compared with meropenem in 1066 men and women with complicated intra-abdominal infections from 2 identical, randomized, double-blind phase 3 studies (NCT01499290 and NCT01500239). METHODS: The primary end point was clinical cure at test-of-cure visit 28-35 days after randomization, assessed by noninferiority of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole to meropenem in the microbiologically modified intention-to-treat (mMITT) population (in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidance), and the modified intention-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations (European Medicines Agency guidance). Noninferiority was considered met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for between-group difference was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of -12.5%. RESULTS: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem across all primary analysis populations. Clinical cure rates with ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole and meropenem, respectively, were as follows: mMITT population, 81.6% and 85.1% (between-group difference, -3.5%; 95% confidence interval -8.64 to 1.58); modified intention-to-treat, 82.5% and 84.9% (-2.4%; -6.90 to 2.10); and clinically evaluable, 91.7% and 92.5% (-0.8%; -4.61 to 2.89). The clinical cure rate with ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole for ceftazidime-resistant infections was comparable to that with meropenem (mMITT population, 83.0% and 85.9%, respectively) and similar to the regimen's own efficacy against ceftazidime-susceptible infections (82.0%). Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Efficacy was similar against infections caused by ceftazidime-susceptible and ceftazidime-resistant pathogens. The safety profile of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was consistent with that previously observed with ceftazidime alone. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01499290 and NCT01500239.

Impact of antimicrobial stewardship programme changes on unnecessary double anaerobic coverage therapy.

BACKGROUND: Concern has been raised over the practice of unnecessary double anaerobic coverage therapy (DACT) in the hospital setting. However, the incidence of and risk factors for unnecessary DACT are not well studied. On 8 September 2008, the antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP) at our institution was modified such that several antibiotics, including ampicillin/sulbactam and metronidazole, no longer required pre-approval. We anticipated that this change would increase both unnecessary DACT and target antibiotic consumption. METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted to determine the cumulative incidence of and risk factors for unnecessary DACT. Cases were subjects who received unnecessary DACT while controls were subjects who did not receive DACT or who received necessary DACT. Segmented regression analysis was subsequently performed to evaluate the impact of ASP changes on unnecessary DACT and consumption of target antibiotics. RESULTS: From October 2007 to September 2009, the cumulative incidence of unnecessary DACT was 2.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-3.1]. Independent risk factors for unnecessary DACT [adjusted odds ratio (95% CI); P value] included hospitalization on a surgical ward [3.51 (1.03-12.02); P = 0.002], hospitalization on an obstetrics and gynaecology ward [9.07 (2.54-32.40); P = 0.002] and underlying metastatic malignancy [3.18 (1.38-7.09); P = 0.006]. The ASP change was associated with an increase in ampicillin/sulbactam and metronidazole consumption. However, there was no significant impact on unnecessary DACT prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Although uncommon, unnecessary DACT is more prevalent in specific services. Future qualitative studies focusing on these specific subgroups would be useful in elucidating this problem more clearly. The ASP changes were not associated with increases in unnecessary DACT.

Child care center exclusion policies and directors' opinions on the use of antibiotics.

We studied exclusion policies and child care center directors' opinions regarding antibiotic use for childhood illnesses. Among 135 respondents, 96.9% reported that they had written policies on exclusion of children for acute illnesses. Although 52.4% of respondents agreed that children are prescribed antibiotics unnecessarily, 89.1% believed that parents pressure physicians to prescribe unnecessary antibiotics.

Risk factors and clinical impact of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae.

BACKGROUND: Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae is an emerging pathogen with serious clinical and infection control implications. To our knowledge, no study has specifically examined risk factors for KPC-producing K. pneumoniae or its impact on mortality. METHODS: To identify risk factors for infection or colonization with KPC-producing K. pneumoniae, a case-control study was performed. Case patients with KPC-producing K. pneumoniae were compared with control subjects with carbapenem-susceptible K. pneumoniae. A cohort study evaluated the association between KPC-producing K. pneumoniae and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Fifty-six case patients and 863 control subjects were identified. In multivariable analysis, independent risk factors for KPC-producing K. pneumoniae were (1) severe illness (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.25-8.25), (2) prior fluoroquinolone use (AOR, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.50, 7.66), and (3) prior extended-spectrum cephalosporin use (AOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.18, 5.52). Compared with samples from other anatomic locations, K. pneumoniae isolates from blood samples were less likely to harbor KPC (AOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12, 0.86). KPC-producing K. pneumoniae was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (AOR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.87-6.91). CONCLUSIONS: KPC-producing K. pneumoniae is an emerging pathogen associated with significant mortality. Our findings highlight the urgent need to develop strategies for prevention and infection control. Limiting use of certain antimicrobials, specifically fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins, use may be effective strategies.

Increased incidence of cytomegalovirus infection in high-risk liver transplant recipients receiving valganciclovir prophylaxis versus ganciclovir prophylaxis.

Optimal measures for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in high-risk orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) patients are unknown. The charts of high-risk OLT recipients with 12 months of follow-up who were transplanted over a 44-month period were reviewed. The incidence of CMV disease in CMV-seropositive donor/CMV-seronegative recipient patients receiving valganciclovir or ganciclovir prophylaxis was compared. Sixty-six patients met the inclusion criteria and were treated with 1 of 3 prophylactic regimens: valganciclovir (900 mg daily; 27 patients), oral ganciclovir (1000 mg every 8 hours; 17 patients), or intravenous ganciclovir (6 mg/kg daily; 22 patients). Eight CMV cases occurred, all after completion of the prophylaxis. The combined incidence of CMV disease with intravenous and oral ganciclovir was lower than the incidence in valganciclovir recipients (P = 0.056; relative risk, 4.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-19.87). CMV disease occurred in 22.2% of valganciclovir recipients, 4.5% of intravenous ganciclovir recipients, and 5.9% of oral ganciclovir recipients. In conclusion, late-onset CMV disease occurred more frequently among high-risk liver transplant recipients treated with valganciclovir prophylaxis. The 4-fold higher incidence of CMV disease in our study supports the avoidance of valganciclovir for prophylaxis in high-risk OLT patients. Liver Transpl 15:963-967, 2009. (c) 2009 AASLD.

Isolation precautions for antibiotic-resistant bacteria in healthcare settings.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Emergence of drug-resistant bacteria and new or changing infectious pathogens is an important public health problem. Transmission of these pathogens in an acute care setting may occur frequently if proper precautions are not taken. Despite several guidelines and an abundance of literature on the prevention of transmission of epidemiologically important organisms in the healthcare setting, substantial controversy exists. This review focuses on recent data regarding the use of infection control and isolation precautions. RECENT FINDINGS: New data are available, but the conflict surrounding the use of active surveillance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has not been resolved. The emergence of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria has prompted a greater interest in infection control strategies for prevention of their spread. Outbreaks of Clostridium difficile have responded to broad infection control initiatives, but further research is required to determine whether the best infection control precautions are being utilized. SUMMARY: Effective prevention of the transmission of pathogens within the healthcare system requires a multifaceted approach. Existing guidelines should be used to create institutional policies specific to individual patient populations, problem pathogens and the ability to practically implement various infection control procedures. Despite ongoing study, the use of active surveillance to prevent transmission of MRSA continues to be a complex, controversial and challenging issue.

Stockpiling drugs for an avian influenza outbreak: examining the surge in oseltamivir prescriptions during heightened media coverage of the potential for a worldwide pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: During fall 2005, personal stockpiling of oseltamivir for use during an outbreak of H5N1 influenza virus infection was widely reported. The present study aimed to identify indications for oseltamivir prescriptions to determine whether oseltamivir that was not intended for seasonal influenza was inappropriately consumed and to compare persons who were likely to have stockpiled oseltamivir and those who did not with respect to their knowledge, understanding, concerns, and expectations regarding avian influenza. DESIGN: Survey to evaluate usage patterns for oseltamivir and assess views about avian influenza. SUBJECTS: A total of 109 outpatients who received a prescription for oseltamivir between September 1, 2005, and December 31, 2005, and 825 matched control subjects. RESULTS: Of 109 prescriptions, 36 (33.0%) were prescribed for patients with appropriate indications. Sixty-eight (62.4%) of 109 patients identified as having received oseltamivir and 440 (53.3%) of 825 individuals identified as not having received it responded to the questionnaire. Only 2 prescription recipients whose oseltamivir was not intended for immediate consumption reported that they had consumed the oseltamivir. Persons who probably intended to stockpile oseltamivir were older and more often white than those unlikely to stockpile it. They also reported greater worry about avian influenza and more often expected avian influenza to spread to the United States than those unlikely to stockpile, but there were no significant differences in responses to other questionnaire items. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of the oseltamivir prescriptions written in fall 2005 were probably intended for personal stockpiling. Similarities in participants' responses to questionnaire items suggest that educational campaigns may not be an effective method to curtail stockpiling of antimicrobial medications during an infectious threat. Promoting appropriate prescribing practices among providers may be a better means by which to minimize personal stockpiling.

Coadministration of oral levofloxacin with agents that impair absorption: impact on antibiotic resistance.

Coadministration of oral divalent or trivalent cation-containing compounds with oral fluoroquinolones may impair fluoroquinolone absorption. Among 3,134 patients who received a course of oral levofloxacin, coadministration was significantly associated with subsequent identification of a levofloxacin-resistant isolate. Strategies to curb the emergence of fluoroquinolone resistance should include avoiding the coadministration of divalent or trivalent cation-containing compounds and fluoroquinolone.

Effect of accessibility of influenza vaccination on the rate of childcare staff vaccination.

We assessed the impact of free on-site influenza vaccination on childcare staff vaccination prevalence using 2 before-and-after studies. Vaccination was offered during the 2003-2004 and 2006-2007 influenza seasons. Staff vaccination prevalence was higher in each intervention season compared to the prior, nonintervention season. No baseline characteristics were associated with receipt of vaccination.

Prevention and treatment of health care-acquired infections.

Health care-acquired infections present a tremendous challenge to the care of hospitalized patients. Unfortunately, the risk of acquiring a health care-associated infection (HAI) is rising. The vast majority of HAI are of four types: urinary tract infections, surgical site infections, bloodstream infections, and pneumonia. This chapter aims to provide current data and strategies relating to the prevention of HAIs among hospitalized patients.

Contact isolation for infection control in hospitalized patients: is patient satisfaction affected?

The effects of contact isolation on patient satisfaction are unknown. We performed a cross-sectional survey and found that most patients lack education and knowledge regarding isolation but feel that it improves their care. In multivariable analysis, isolated patients were not less satisfied with inpatient care than were nonisolated patients.