Tocilizumab Versus Baricitinib for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Patients With Obesity.

Background: Tocilizumab and baricitinib have emerged as potential treatments for patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) following the findings of the Recovery Group and the results of the COV-BARRIER study. Unfortunately, there is a lack of guidance regarding the use of these agents in high-risk patients, such as those with obesity. Objective: To compare the outcomes of tocilizumab and baricitinib as potential treatments for obese patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Methods: This was a multi-center retrospective analysis comparing outcomes of obese patients who received the standard of care plus tocilizumab or baricitinib for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Included patients had a BMI >30 kg/m2, needed ICU level care, and required non-invasive or invasive ventilatory support. Results: This study included 64 patients who received tocilizumab and 69 patients who received baricitinib. When examining the primary outcome, patients who received tocilizumab had a shorter duration of ventilatory support (10.0 vs 15.0 days, P = .016) than patients who received baricitinib. Our secondary outcome of in-hospital mortality was lower in the tocilizumab group as well (23.4% vs 53.6%, P < .001). Tocilizumab was also associated with a non-significant reduction in new positive blood cultures (13.0% vs 3.1%, P = .056) and new invasive fungal infection (7.3% vs 1.6%, P = .210). Conclusions: This retrospective review showed a reduced duration of ventilatory support in obese patients who received tocilizumab vs baricitinib. In the future, additional studies should be conducted to further examine and confirm these results.

Duration of Gram-negative antibiotic therapy in patients with pneumonia prior to and after the implementation of MRSA nasal swabs, an antimicrobial stewardship tool.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of MRSA PCR nasal swabs has been shown to decrease the use of anti-MRSA therapies through faster antibiotic de-escalation in patients with pneumonia. While this benefit has been shown exclusively in Gram-positive therapy, swab results may lead to additional antibiotic de-escalation discussions early on, potentially providing reduced durations or de-escalations of Gram-negative therapy as well. OBJECTIVES: To determine if early de-escalation discussions prompted by MRSA swab results lead to shorter durations of Gram-negative antibiotic therapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to compare pneumonia duration of Gram-negative therapy pre- and post-implementation of MRSA nasal swabs. Time to de-escalation, time to conversion to enteral therapy and cost were also compared between the groups. RESULTS: Data were collected for 240 patients overall, 120 in each group. The median duration of Gram-negative therapy was 154.0 h in the post-implementation group and 176.4 h in the pre-implementation group (P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in time to de-escalation (52.7 versus 54.9 h; P = 0.351) or time to transition from IV to enteral therapy (53.0 versus 57.3 h; P = 0.289). The median cost of Gram-negative regimens per patient was less expensive in the post-implementation group ($31.36 versus $45.90; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: MRSA nasal swabs as an antimicrobial stewardship tool were associated with a reduced overall duration of Gram-negative therapy and Gram-negative antibiotic regimen cost. This introduces an additional benefit of MRSA nasal swabs and further incentivizes their use as an antimicrobial stewardship tool.