Antibiotic definitive treatment in ventilator associated pneumonia caused by AmpC-producing Enterobacterales in critically ill patients: a prospective multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) due to wild-type AmpC-producing Enterobacterales (wtAE) is frequent in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Despite a low level of evidence, definitive antimicrobial therapy (AMT) with third generation cephalosporins (3GCs) or piperacillin is discouraged. METHODS: Observational prospective study including consecutive wtAE VAP patients in 20 French ICUs. The primary objective was to assess the association of the choice of definitive AMT, i.e. piperacillin ± tazobactam (PTZ), 3GCs or other molecule (4GCs, carbapenems, quinolones, cotrimoxazole; control group), with treatment success at day-7. Recurrence of infection was collected as a secondary outcome, and analyzed accounting for the competing risk of death. RESULTS: From February 2021 to June 2022, 274 patients were included. Enterobacter cloacae was the most prevalent specie (31%). Seventy-eight patients (28%) had PTZ as definitive AMT while 44 (16%) had 3GCs and 152 (56%) were classified in the control group. Day-7 success rate was similar between the 3 groups (74% vs. 73% vs. 68% respectively, p = 0.814). Recurrence probability at day-28 was 31% (95% CI 21-42), 40% (95% CI 26-55) and 21% (95% CI 15-28) for PTZ, 3GCs and control groups (p = 0.020). In multivariable analysis, choice of definitive AMT was not associated with clinical success, but definitive AMT with 3GCs was associated with recurrence at day-28 [csHR(95%CI) 10.9 (1.92-61.91)]. CONCLUSION: Choice of definitive antimicrobial therapy was not associated with treatment success at day 7. However, recurrence of pneumonia at day-28 was higher in patients treated with third generation cephalosporins with no differences in mortality or mechanical ventilation duration.

Inhaled nitric oxide in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19: treatment modalities, clinical response, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) has been widely used in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS), though its physiological effects and outcome are debated in this setting. The objective of this cohort study was to describe the modalities of iNO use, clinical response, and outcomes in a large cohort of C-ARDS patients. METHODS: Multicentre, retrospective cohort study conducted in France. RESULTS: From end February to December 2020, 300 patients (22.3% female) were included, 84.5% were overweight and 69.0% had at least one comorbidity. At ICU admission, their median (IQR) age, SAPS II, and SOFA score were 66 (57-72) years, 37 (29-48), and 5 (3-8), respectively. Patients were all ventilated according to a protective ventilation strategy, and 68% were prone positioned before iNO initiation. At iNO initiation, 2%, 37%, and 61% of patients had mild, moderate, and severe ARDS, respectively. The median duration of iNO treatment was 2.8 (1.1-5.5) days with a median dosage of 10 (7-13) ppm at initiation. Responders (PaO2/FiO2 ratio improving by 20% or more) represented 45.7% of patients at 6 h from iNO initiation. The severity of ARDS was the only predictive factor associated with iNO response. Among all evaluable patients, the crude mortality was not significantly different between responders at 6 h and their counterparts. Of the 62 patients with refractory ARDS (who fulfilled extracorporeal membrane oxygenation criteria before iNO initiation), 32 (51.6%) no longer fulfilled these criteria after 6 h of iNO. The latter showed significantly lower mortality than the other half (who remained ECMO eligible), including after confounder adjustment (adjusted OR: 0.23, 95% CI 0.06, 0.89, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our study reports the benefits of iNO in improving arterial oxygenation in C-ARDS patients. This improvement seems more relevant in the most severe cases. In patients with ECMO criteria, an iNO-driven improvement in gas exchange was associated with better survival. These results must be confirmed in well-designed prospective studies.

Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients. METHODS: The present report took the opportunity of compassionate use and successive drug shortages to compare the effects of two therapeutic options, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine, as compared to standard of care only. The primary outcomes were treatment escalation (intubation, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation support, or renal replacement therapy) after day 1 until day 28. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 14 and day 28, treatment safety issues and changes in respiratory tracts, and plasma viral load (as estimated by cycle threshold value) between admission and day 7. RESULTS: Eighty patients were treated during a 4-week period and included in the analysis: 22 (28%) received standard of care only, 20 (25%) patients received lopinavir/ritonavir associated to standard of care, and 38 (47%) patients received hydroxychloroquine and standard of care. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups. Treatment escalation occurred in 9 (41%), 10 (50%), and 15 (39%) patients who received standard of care only, standard of care and lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care and hydroxychloroquine, respectively (p = 0.567). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and mortality at day 14 and day 28. Finally, there was no significant change between groups in viral respiratory or plasma load between admission and day 7. CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia, no difference was found between hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir as compared to standard of care only on the proportion of patients who needed treatment escalation at day 28. Further randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate whether these drugs may be useful in this context.

Follow-Up of Patients With Complete Remission of Locally Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma After Vismodegib Discontinuation: A Multicenter French Study of 116 Patients.

PURPOSE: Vismodegib is a hedgehog pathway inhibitor indicated for the treatment of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC), with an objective response rate of 65%, including a 32% complete response (CR). However, adverse effects often lead to drug discontinuation. The objective of our study was to evaluate long-term responses, predictive factors, and management of relapse after vismodegib discontinuation. METHODS: An observational retrospective study was conducted in nine French oncodermatology units. We included patients with laBCC with CR on vismodegib who discontinued treatment between March 2012 and January 2016; we reviewed charts up to June 2016. The primary objective was to evaluate median relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary objectives were risk factors associated with RFS, relapse, and death and treatment modalities after relapse and their efficacy. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen patients with laBCC were included. The median RFS was 18.4 months (95% CI, 13.5 to 24.8 months). The RFS rate at 36 months was 35.4% (95% CI, 22.5% to 47.9%) for the total population and 40.0% (95% CI, 25.7% to 53.7%) for patients without Gorlin syndrome. LaBCC to the limbs and trunk was the only variable independently associated with a higher risk of relapse (hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.23 to 6.22; P = .019). Twenty-seven patients (50%) who experienced relapse during follow-up were retreated with vismodegib, with an objective response in 23 (objective response rate, 85%; CR rate, 37%; partial response rate, 48%) and eligibility for surgery in 24 (42%). CONCLUSION: Long-term response after vismodegib discontinuation is frequent. Most patients who experience a relapse still respond to vismodegib rechallenge.