Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and Bronchoalveolar Cytokine Concentrations Redefine the COVID-19 Phenotypes in Critically Ill Patients.

RATIONALE: Recent studies suggest that both hypo- and hyperinflammatory acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotypes characterize severe COVID-19-related pneumonia. The role of lung Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome - Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in contributing to these phenotypes remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To redefine COVID-19 ARDS phenotypes when considering quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in the bronchoalveolar lavage of intubated patients. To compare the relevance of deep respiratory samples versus plasma in linking the immune response and the quantitative viral loads. METHODS: Eligible subjects were adults diagnosed with COVID-19 ARDS who required mechanical ventilation and underwent bronchoscopy. We recorded the immune response in the bronchoalveolar lavage and plasma and the quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in the bronchoalveolar lavage. Hierarchical clustering on principal components was applied separately on the 2 compartments' datasets. Baseline characteristics were compared between clusters. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Twenty subjects were enrolled between August 2020 and March 2021. Subjects underwent bronchoscopy on average 3.6 days after intubation. All subjects were treated with dexamethasone prior to bronchoscopy, 11 of 20 (55.6%) received remdesivir and 1 of 20 (5%) received tocilizumab. Adding viral load information to the classic 2-cluster model of ARDS revealed a new cluster characterized by hypoinflammatory responses and high viral load in 23.1% of the cohort. Hyperinflammatory ARDS was noted in 15.4% of subjects. Bronchoalveolar lavage clusters were more stable compared to plasma. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a unique group of critically ill subjects with COVID-19 ARDS who exhibit hypoinflammatory responses but high viral loads in the lower airways. These clusters may warrant different treatment approaches to improve clinical outcomes.

Understanding the nebulisation of antibiotics: the key role of lung microdialysis studies.

BACKGROUND: Nebulisation of antibiotics is a promising treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Ensuring effective antibiotic concentrations at the site of infection in the interstitial space fluid is crucial for clinical outcomes. Current assessment methods, such as epithelial lining fluid and tissue homogenates, have limitations in providing longitudinal pharmacokinetic data. MAIN BODY: Lung microdialysis, an invasive research technique predominantly used in animals, involves inserting probes into lung parenchyma to measure antibiotic concentrations in interstitial space fluid. Lung microdialysis offers unique advantages, such as continuous sampling, regional assessment of antibiotic lung concentrations and avoidance of bronchial contamination. However, it also has inherent limitations including the cost of probes and assay development, the need for probe calibration and limited applicability to certain antibiotics. As a research tool in VAP, lung microdialysis necessitates specialist techniques and resource-intensive experimental designs involving large animals undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation. However, its potential impact on advancing our understanding of nebulised antibiotics for VAP is substantial. The technique may enable the investigation of various factors influencing antibiotic lung pharmacokinetics, including drug types, delivery devices, ventilator settings, interfaces and disease conditions. Combining in vivo pharmacokinetics with in vitro pharmacodynamic simulations can become feasible, providing insights to inform nebulised antibiotic dose optimisation regimens. Specifically, it may aid in understanding and optimising the nebulisation of polymyxins, effective against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Furthermore, lung microdialysis holds promise in exploring novel nebulisation therapies, including repurposed antibiotic formulations, bacteriophages and immunomodulators. The technique's potential to monitor dynamic biochemical changes in pneumonia, such as cytokines, metabolites and inflammation/infection markers, opens avenues for developing theranostic tools tailored to critically ill patients with VAP. CONCLUSION: In summary, lung microdialysis can be a potential transformative tool, offering real-time insights into nebulised antibiotic pharmacokinetics. Its potential to inform optimal dosing regimen development based on precise target site concentrations and contribute to development of theranostic tools positions it as key player in advancing treatment strategies for VAP caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. The establishment of international research networks, exemplified by LUMINA (lung microdialysis applied to nebulised antibiotics), signifies a proactive step towards addressing complexities and promoting multicentre experimental studies in the future.

Comparison of Empiric Antibiotic Treatment Regimens for Hospitalized, Non-severe Community-acquired Pneumonia: A Retrospective, Multicenter Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Consensus guidelines for hospitalized, non-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) recommend empiric macrolide + ß-lactam or respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy in patients with no risk factors for resistant organisms. In patients with allergies or contraindications, doxycycline + ß-lactam is a recommended alternative. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in outcomes among guideline-recommended regimens in this population. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included patients ≥18 years of age with CAP who received respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy, empiric macrolide + ß-lactam, or doxycycline + ß-lactam. Major exclusion criteria included patients with immunocompromising conditions, requiring vasopressors or invasive mechanical ventilation within 48 hours of admission, and receiving less than 2 days of total antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical failure, 14- and 30-day hospital readmission, and hospital length of stay. Safety outcomes included incidence of new Clostridioides difficile infection and aortic aneurysm ruptures. FINDINGS: Of 4685 included patients, 1722 patients received empiric respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy, 159 received empiric doxycycline + ß-lactam, and 2804 received empiric macrolide + ß-lactam. Incidence of in-hospital mortality was not observed to be significantly different among empiric regimens (doxycycline + ß-lactam group: 1.9% vs macrolide + ß-lactam: 1.9% vs respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy: 1.5%, P = 0.588). No secondary outcomes were observed to differ significantly among groups. IMPLICATIONS: We observed no differences in clinical or safety outcomes among three guideline-recommended empiric CAP regimens. Empiric doxycycline + ß-lactam may be a safe empiric regimen for hospitalized CAP patients with non-severe CAP, although additional research is needed to corroborate these observations with larger samples.

Effect of Early Administration of Vasopressin on New-Onset Arrhythmia Development in Patients With Septic Shock: A Retrospective, Observational Cohort Study.

Background: Adjunctive vasopressin use in septic shock reduces catecholamine requirements and is associated with a lower incidence of new-onset arrhythmias (NOAs). The association of vasopressin timing on NOA development is ill-described. Objective: To determine whether early administration of vasopressin was associated with a lower incidence of NOA in septic shock patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis of intensive care unit (ICU) patients at a large, academic medical center. Septic shock patients who required vasopressin and norepinephrine were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded for receipt of other vasoactive agents, history of cardiac arrhythmias, or outside hospital admission. Early vasopressin was defined as receipt within 6 hours of septic shock onset. The primary outcome was incidence of NOA. Results: In total, 436 patients, 220 (50.4%) in the early and 216 (49.6%) in the late vasopressin group, were included. Early vasopressin was not associated with a lower incidence of NOA compared with late vasopressin (9% vs 7%, median absolute difference [95% confidence interval, CI]: -2.1 [-7.2, 3.0], P = 0.41). Early vasopressin patients were observed to have shorter shock duration (2 vs 4 days, median absolute difference [95% CI]: 2 [1, 2], P < 0.001), and ICU length of stay (6 vs 7 days, median absolute difference [95% CI]: 1 [0, 2], P = 0.02). Conclusions and Relevance: Early vasopressin use was not associated with a lower incidence of NOA. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the effect of vasopressin timing on NOA and other clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of rezafungin and caspofungin in candidaemia and invasive candidiasis: pooled data from two prospective randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Rezafungin, a new US Food and Drug Administration-approved, long-acting echinocandin to treat candidaemia and invasive candidiasis, was efficacious with a similar safety profile to caspofungin in clinical trials. We conducted pooled analyses of the phase 2 STRIVE and phase 3 ReSTORE rezafungin trials. METHODS: ReSTORE was a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial conducted at 66 tertiary care centres in 15 countries. STRIVE was a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 2 trial conducted at 44 centres in 10 countries. Adults (≥18 years) with candidaemia or invasive candidiasis were treated with once-a-week intravenous rezafungin (400 mg and 200 mg) or once-a-day intravenous caspofungin (70 mg and 50 mg). Efficacy was evaluated in a pooled modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population. Primary efficacy endpoint was day 30 all-cause mortality (tested for non-inferiority with a pre-specified margin of 20%). Secondary efficacy endpoint was mycological response. Safety was also evaluated. The STRIVE and ReSTORE trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02734862 and NCT03667690, and both studies are complete. FINDINGS: ReSTORE was conducted from Oct 12, 2018, to Oct 11, 2021, and STRIVE from July 26, 2016, to April 18, 2019. The mITT population, pooling the data from the two trials, comprised 139 patients for rezafungin and 155 patients for caspofungin. Day 30 all-cause mortality rates were comparable between groups (19% [26 of 139] for the rezafungin group and 19% [30 of 155] for the caspofungin group) and the upper bound of the 95% CI for the weighted treatment difference was below 10% (-1·5% [95% CI -10·7 to 7·7]). Mycological eradication occurred by day 5 in 102 (73%) of 139 rezafungin patients and 100 (65%) of 155 caspofungin patients (weighted treatment difference 10·0% [95% CI -0·3 to 20·4]). Safety profiles were similar across groups. INTERPRETATION: Rezafungin was non-inferior to caspofungin for all-cause mortality, with a potential early treatment benefit, possibly reflecting rezafungin's front-loaded dosing regimen. These findings are of clinical importance in fighting active and aggressive infections and reducing the morbidity and mortality caused by candidaemia and invasive candidiasis. FUNDING: Melinta Therapeutics and Cidara Therapeutics.

Is Zero Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Achievable? Updated Practical Approaches to Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Prevention.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a significant clinical entity with reported incidence rates of 7% to 15%. Given the considerable adverse consequences associated with this infection, VAP prevention became a core measure required in most US hospitals. Many institutions took pride in implementing effective VAP prevention bundles that combined at least head of bed elevation, hand hygiene, chlorhexidine oral care, and subglottic drainage. Spontaneous breathing and awakening trials have also consistently been shown to shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation and secondarily reduce the occurrence of VAP.

Patient and Hospital Characteristics Associated With the Interhospital Transfer of Adult Patients With Sepsis.

IMPORTANCE: The interhospital transfer (IHT) of patients with sepsis to higher-capability hospitals may improve outcomes. Little is known about patient and hospital factors associated with sepsis IHT. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated patterns of hospitalization and IHT and determined patient and hospital factors associated with the IHT of adult patients with sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 349,938 adult patients with sepsis at 329 nonfederal hospitals in California, 2018-2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We evaluated patterns of admission and outward IHT between low sepsis-, intermediate sepsis-, and high sepsis-capability hospitals. We estimated odds of IHT using generalized estimating equations logistic regression with bootstrap stepwise variable selection. RESULTS: Among the cohort, 223,202 (66.4%) were initially hospitalized at high-capability hospitals and 10,870 (3.1%) underwent IHT. Nearly all transfers (98.2%) from low-capability hospitals were received at higher-capability hospitals. Younger age (< 65 yr) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.69) and increasing organ dysfunction (aOR 1.22; 95% CI, 1.19-1.25) were associated with higher IHT odds, as were admission to low-capability (aOR 2.79; 95% CI, 2.33-3.35) or public hospitals (aOR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.09-1.66). Female sex (aOR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91), Medicaid insurance (aOR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.53-0.66), home to admitting hospital distance less than or equal to 10 miles (aOR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97) and do-not-resuscitate orders (aOR 0.48; 95% CI, 0.45-0.52) were associated with lower IHT odds, as was admission to a teaching hospital (aOR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.96). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most patients with sepsis are initially hospitalized at high-capability hospitals. The IHT rate for sepsis is low and more likely to originate from low-capability and public hospitals than from high-capability and for-profit hospitals. Transferred patients with sepsis are more likely to be younger, male, sicker, with private medical insurance, and less likely to have care limitation orders. Future studies should evaluate the comparative benefits of IHT from low-capability hospitals.

Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam in patients with infections caused by ß-lactamase-producing Gram-negative pathogens: a pooled analysis from the Phase 3 clinical trial programme.

OBJECTIVES: This post hoc pooled analysis evaluated clinical and microbiological outcomes and safety in patients with infections caused by ß-lactamase-producing Gram-negative pathogens across five Phase 3, randomized, controlled, multicentre trials of ceftazidime/avibactam in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI)/pyelonephritis and nosocomial pneumonia (NP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: In each trial, RECLAIM/RECLAIM 3 (cIAI), REPRISE (cIAI/cUTI), RECAPTURE (cUTI) and REPROVE (NP, including VAP) patients were randomized 1:1 to IV ceftazidime/avibactam (plus metronidazole for patients with cIAI) or comparators (carbapenems in >97% patients) for 5-21 days. Clinical and microbiological responses at the test-of-cure visit were assessed for patients with ESBLs, and/or plasmidic and/or overexpression of chromosomal AmpC, and/or serine carbapenemases without MBLs identified in baseline Gram-negative isolates by phenotypic screening and molecular characterization in the pooled microbiological modified ITT (mMITT) population. RESULTS: In total, 813 patients (ceftazidime/avibactam, n = 389; comparator, n = 424) had ≥1 ß-lactamase-producing baseline pathogen identified, amongst whom 792 patients (ceftazidime/avibactam, n = 379; comparator, n = 413) had no MBLs. The most frequent ß-lactamase-producing pathogens across treatment groups were Escherichia coli (n = 381), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 261) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 53). Clinical cure rates in the pooled non-MBL ß-lactamase-producing mMITT population were 88.1% (334/379) for ceftazidime/avibactam and 88.1% (364/413) for comparators; favourable microbiological response rates were 76.5% (290/379) and 68.8% (284/413), respectively. The safety profile of ceftazidime/avibactam was consistent with previous observations. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam in patients with infections caused by ESBLs, AmpC and serine carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative pathogens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01499290; NCT01726023; NCT01644643; NCT01595438/NCT01599806; NCT01808092.

Addition of aminoglycosides reduces recurrence of infections with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli in patients with sepsis and septic shock.

OBJECTIVES: Aminoglycosides and ß-lactams have been recommended for treatment of sepsis/septic shock despite a lack of mortality benefit. Previous studies have examined resistance emergence for the same bacterial isolate using old dosing regimens and during a narrow follow-up window. We hypothesised that combination regimens employing aminoglycosides will decrease the cumulative incidence of infections due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) compared with ß-lactams alone. METHODS: All adult patients admitted to Barnes Jewish Hospital between 2010 and 2017 with a diagnosis of sepsis/septic shock were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two treatment groups, with and without aminoglycosides. Patient demographics, severity of presentation, administered antibiotics, follow-up cultures with susceptibility results for a period of 4-60 days, and mortality were extracted. After propensity score matching, a Fine-Gray subdistribution proportional hazards model summarised the estimated incidence of subsequent infections with MDR-GNB in the presence of all-cause death as a competing risk. RESULTS: A total of 10 212 septic patients were included, with 1996 (19.5%) treated with at least two antimicrobials including one aminoglycoside. After propensity score matching, the cumulative incidence of MDR-GNB infections between 4-60 days was lower in the combination group (incidence at 60 days 0.073, 95% CI 0.062-0.085) versus patients not receiving aminoglycosides (0.116, 95% CI 0.102-0.130). Patients aged ≤65 years and with haematological malignancies had a larger treatment effect in subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: Addition of aminoglycosides to ß-lactams may protect against subsequent infections due to MDR-GNB in patients with sepsis/septic shock.

Participant- and Disease-Related Factors as Independent Predictors of Treatment Outcomes in the RESTORE-IMI 2 Clinical Trial: A Multivariable Regression Analysis.

Background: In the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) was noninferior to piperacillin/tazobactam in treating hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. This post hoc analysis was conducted to determine independent predictors of efficacy outcomes in the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, to assist in treatment decision making. Methods: A stepwise multivariable regression analysis was conducted to identify variables that were independently associated with day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM), favorable clinical response at early follow-up (EFU), and favorable microbiologic response at end of treatment (EOT). The analysis accounted for the number of baseline infecting pathogens and in vitro susceptibility to randomized treatment. Results: Vasopressor use, renal impairment, bacteremia at baseline, and Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores ≥15 were associated with a greater risk of day 28 ACM. A favorable clinical response at EFU was associated with normal renal function, an APACHE II score <15, no vasopressor use, and no bacteremia at baseline. At EOT, a favorable microbiologic response was associated with IMI/REL treatment, normal renal function, no vasopressor use, nonventilated pneumonia at baseline, intensive care unit admission at randomization, monomicrobial infections at baseline, and absence of Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex at baseline. These factors remained significant after accounting for polymicrobial infection and in vitro susceptibility to assigned treatment. Conclusions: This analysis, which accounted for baseline pathogen susceptibility, validated well-recognized patient- and disease-related factors as independent predictors of clinical outcomes. These results lend further support to the noninferiority of IMI/REL to piperacillin/tazobactam and suggests that pathogen eradication may be more likely with IMI/REL. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02493764.

The Relationship Between Hospital Capability and Mortality in Sepsis: Development of a Sepsis-Related Hospital Capability Index.

OBJECTIVES: Regionalized sepsis care could improve sepsis outcomes by facilitating the interhospital transfer of patients to higher-capability hospitals. There are no measures of sepsis capability to guide the identification of such hospitals, although hospital case volume of sepsis has been used as a proxy. We evaluated the performance of a novel hospital sepsis-related capability (SRC) index as compared with sepsis case volume. DESIGN: Principal component analysis (PCA) and retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A total of 182 New York (derivation) and 274 Florida and Massachusetts (validation) nonfederal hospitals, 2018. PATIENTS: A total of 89,069 and 139,977 adult patients (≥ 18 yr) with sepsis were directly admitted into the derivation and validation cohort hospitals, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We derived SRC scores by PCA of six hospital resource use characteristics (bed capacity, annual volumes of sepsis, major diagnostic procedures, renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, and major therapeutic procedures) and classified hospitals into capability score tertiles: high, intermediate, and low. High-capability hospitals were mostly urban teaching hospitals. Compared with sepsis volume, the SRC score explained more variation in hospital-level sepsis mortality in the derivation (unadjusted coefficient of determination [ R2 ]: 0.25 vs 0.12, p < 0.001 for both) and validation (0.18 vs 0.05, p < 0.001 for both) cohorts; and demonstrated stronger correlation with outward transfer rates for sepsis in the derivation (Spearman coefficient [ r ]: 0.60 vs 0.50) and validation (0.51 vs 0.45) cohorts. Compared with low-capability hospitals, patients with sepsis directly admitted into high-capability hospitals had a greater number of acute organ dysfunctions, a higher proportion of surgical hospitalizations, and higher adjusted mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.25-1.92). In stratified analysis, worse mortality associated with higher hospital capability was only evident among patients with three or more organ dysfunctions (OR, 1.88 [1.50-2.34]). CONCLUSIONS: The SRC score has face validity for capability-based groupings of hospitals. Sepsis care may already be de facto regionalized at high-capability hospitals. Low-capability hospitals may have become more adept at treating less complicated sepsis.

Prospective role of cefiderocol in the management of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections: Review of the evidence.

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) has been classified by the World Health Organization as being in the critical category of pathogens requiring urgent new antibiotic treatment options. Cefiderocol, the first approved siderophore cephalosporin, was designed for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, particularly the non-fermenting species A. baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Cefiderocol is mostly stable against hydrolysis by serine ß-lactamases and metallo-ß-lactamases, which are leading causes of carbapenem resistance. This review collates the available evidence on the in vitro activity, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and efficacy and safety of cefiderocol, and outlines its current role in the management of CRAB infections. In vitro surveillance data show susceptibility rates of >90% for cefiderocol against CRAB isolates as well as in vitro synergism with a variety of antibiotics recommended in guidelines. Clinical efficacy of cefiderocol monotherapy against CRAB infections has been demonstrated in the descriptive, open-label CREDIBLE-CR and the non-inferiority, double-blind APEKS-NP randomised clinical trials as well as in real-world cases in patients with underlying health problems. To date, the frequency of on-therapy development of cefiderocol resistance in A. baumannii appears to be low, but monitoring is highly recommended. Within current treatment guidelines for moderate-to-severe CRAB infections, cefiderocol is recommended for infections in which other antibiotics failed and in combination with other active antibiotics. In vivo pre-clinical data support the combination of sulbactam or avibactam with cefiderocol to enhance efficacy and to suppress the emergence of cefiderocol resistance. The benefit of combination therapy in the clinical setting is yet to be determined in prospective studies.

ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of severe community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and while European and non-European guidelines are available for community-acquired pneumonia, there are no specific guidelines for sCAP. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: The European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and Latin American Thoracic Association (ALAT) launched a task force to develop the first international guidelines for sCAP. The panel comprised a total of 18 European and four non-European experts, as well as two methodologists. Eight clinical questions for sCAP diagnosis and treatment were chosen to be addressed. Systematic literature searches were performed in several databases. Meta-analyses were performed for evidence synthesis, whenever possible. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to decide on the direction and strength of recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations issued were related to diagnosis, antibiotics, organ support, biomarkers and co-adjuvant therapy. After considering the confidence in effect estimates, the importance of outcomes studied, desirable and undesirable consequences of treatment, cost, feasibility, acceptability of the intervention and implications to health equity, recommendations were made for or against specific treatment interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In these international guidelines, ERS, ESICM, ESCMID and ALAT provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for diagnosis, empirical treatment and antibiotic therapy for sCAP, following the GRADE approach. Furthermore, current knowledge gaps have been highlighted and recommendations for future research have been made.

ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of severe community-acquired pneumonia.

PURPOSE: Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and whilst European and non-European guidelines are available for community-acquired pneumonia, there are no specific guidelines for sCAP. METHODS: The European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID), and Latin American Thoracic Association (ALAT) launched a task force to develop the first international guidelines for sCAP. The panel comprised a total of 18 European and four non-European experts, as well as two methodologists. Eight clinical questions for sCAP diagnosis and treatment were chosen to be addressed. Systematic literature searches were performed in several databases. Meta-analyses were performed for evidence synthesis, whenever possible. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to decide on the direction and strength of recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations issued were related to diagnosis, antibiotics, organ support, biomarkers and co-adjuvant therapy. After considering the confidence in effect estimates, the importance of outcomes studied, desirable and undesirable consequences of treatment, cost, feasibility, acceptability of the intervention and implications to health equity, recommendations were made for or against specific treatment interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In these international guidelines, ERS, ESICM, ESCMID, and ALAT provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for diagnosis, empirical treatment, and antibiotic therapy for sCAP, following the GRADE approach. Furthermore, current knowledge gaps have been highlighted and recommendations for future research have been made.

Determinants of Mortality for Ventilated Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia.

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is the most common hospital-acquired infection, accounting for 22% of all nosocomial infections. The available studies to date have not attempted to assess whether confounding factors may account for the observed difference in mortality for the two forms of nosocomial pneumonia associated with mechanical ventilation, namely ventilated HAP (vHAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). OBJECTIVES: To determine if vHAP is an independent predictor of mortality among patients with nosocomial pneumonia. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center retrospective cohort study conducted at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, between 2016 and 2019. Adult patients with a pneumonia discharge diagnosis were screened and patients diagnosed with vHAP and VAP were included. All patient data was extracted from the electronic health record. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality (ACM). RESULTS: One thousand one-hundred twenty unique patient admissions were included (410 vHAP, 710 VAP). Thirty-day ACM was greater for patients with vHAP compared with VAP (37.1% vs 28.5%; p = 0.003). Logistic regression analysis identified vHAP (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.51-2.07), vasopressor use (AOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.94-2.82), Charlson Comorbidity Index (1-point increments) (AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.18-1.24), total antibiotic treatment days (1-d increments) (AOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.11-1.14), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (1-point increments) (AOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06) as independent predictors of 30-day ACM. The most common bacterial pathogens identified as causes of vHAP and VAP were Staphylococcus aureus, Enterobacterales species, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this single-center cohort study with low rates of initial inappropriate antibiotic therapy, vHAP had greater 30-day ACM compared with VAP after adjusting for potential confounding variables including disease severity and comorbidities. This finding suggests that clinical trials enrolling patients with vHAP need to account for this outcome difference in their trial design and data interpretation.

Outcomes in participants with ventilated nosocomial pneumonia and organ failure treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem: a subset analysis of the phase 3, randomized, controlled ASPECT-NP trial.

BACKGROUND: The pivotal ASPECT-NP trial showed ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (vHABP/VABP). Here, we evaluated treatment outcomes by degree of respiratory or cardiovascular dysfunction. METHODS: This was a subset analysis of data from ASPECT-NP, a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757). Adults with vHABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam or 1 g meropenem every 8 h for 8-14 days. Outcomes in participants with a baseline respiratory component of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (R-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of severe respiratory failure), cardiovascular component of the SOFA score (CV-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of shock), or R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 were compared by treatment arm. The efficacy endpoint of primary interest was 28-day all-cause mortality. Clinical response, time to death, and microbiologic response were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were 726 participants in the intention-to-treat population; 633 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 (312 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 321 meropenem), 183 with CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (84 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 99 meropenem), and 160 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (69 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 91 meropenem). Baseline characteristics, including causative pathogens, were generally similar in participants with R-SOFA ≥ 2 or CV-SOFA ≥ 2 across treatment arms. The 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 23.7% and 24.0% [difference: 0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 6.4, 6.9] for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 33.3% and 30.3% (difference: - 3.0%, 95% CI - 16.4, 10.3) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 34.8% and 30.8% (difference: - 4.0%, 95% CI - 18.6, 10.3), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Clinical cure rates were as follows: 55.8% and 54.2% (difference: 1.6%, 95% CI - 6.2, 9.3) for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 53.6% and 55.6% (difference: - 2.0%, 95% CI - 16.1, 12.2) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 53.6% and 56.0% (difference: - 2.4%, 95% CI - 17.6, 12.8), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Time to death was comparable in all SOFA groups across both treatment arms. A higher rate of microbiologic eradication/presumed eradication was observed for CV-SOFA ≥ 2 and R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 with ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of severe respiratory failure or shock did not affect the relative efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem; either agent may be used to treat critically ill patients with vHABP/VABP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757. Registered 25 February 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

Clinician Perspectives on Barriers and Enablers to Implementing an Inpatient Oncology Early Warning System: A Mixed-Methods Study.

PURPOSE: To elicit end-user and stakeholder perceptions regarding design and implementation of an inpatient clinical deterioration early warning system (EWS) for oncology patients to better fit routine clinical practices and enhance clinical impact. METHODS: In an explanatory-sequential mixed-methods study, we evaluated a stakeholder-informed oncology early warning system (OncEWS) using surveys and semistructured interviews. Stakeholders were physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), and nurses. For qualitative data, we used grounded theory and thematic content analysis via the constant comparative method to identify determinants of OncEWS implementation. RESULTS: Survey respondents generally agreed that an oncology-focused EWS could add value beyond clinical judgment, with nurses endorsing this notion significantly more strongly than other clinicians (nurse: median 5 on a 6-point scale [6 = strongly agree], interquartile range 4-5; doctors/advanced practice providers: 4 [4-5]; P = .005). However, some respondents would not trust an EWS to identify risk accurately (n = 36 [42%] somewhat or very concerned), while others were concerned that institutional culture would not embrace such an EWS (n = 17 [28%]).Interviews highlighted important aspects of the EWS and the local context that might facilitate implementation, including (1) a model tailored to the subtleties of oncology patients, (2) transparent model information, and (3) nursing-centric workflows. Interviewees raised the importance of sepsis as a common and high-risk deterioration syndrome. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders prioritized maximizing the degree to which the OncEWS is understandable, informative, actionable, and workflow-complementary, and perceived these factors to be key for translation into clinical benefit.

Rezafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (ReSTORE): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rezafungin is a next-generation, once-a-week echinocandin in development for the treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis and for the prevention of invasive fungal disease caused by Candida, Aspergillus, and Pneumocystis spp after blood and marrow transplantation. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous rezafungin versus intravenous caspofungin in patients with candidaemia and invasive candidiasis. METHODS: ReSTORE was a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial done at 66 tertiary care centres in 15 countries. Adults (≥18 years) with systemic signs and mycological confirmation of candidaemia or invasive candidiasis were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous rezafungin once a week (400 mg in week 1, followed by 200 mg weekly, for a total of two to four doses) or intravenous caspofungin (70 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 50 mg daily) for no more than 4 weeks. The primary endpoints were global cure (consisting of clinical cure, radiological cure, and mycological eradication) at day 14 for the European Medical Agency (EMA) and 30-day all-cause mortality for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), both with a target non-inferiority margin of 20%, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received one or more doses of study drug and had documented Candida infection based on a culture from blood or another normally sterile site obtained within 96 h before randomisation). Safety was evaluated by the incidence and type of adverse events and deaths in the safety population, defined as all patients who received any amount of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03667690, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 12, 2018, and Aug 29, 2021, 222 patients were screened for inclusion, and 199 patients (118 [59%] men; 81 [41%] women; mean age 61 years [SD 15·2]) were randomly assigned (100 [50%] patients to the rezafungin group and 99 [50%] patients to the caspofungin group). 55 (59%) of 93 patients in the rezafungin group and 57 (61%) of 94 patients in the caspofungin group had a global cure at day 14 (weighted treatment difference -1·1% [95% CI -14·9 to 12·7]; EMA primary endpoint). 22 (24%) of 93 patients in the rezafungin group and 20 (21%) of 94 patients in the caspofungin group died or had an unknown survival status at day 30 (treatment difference 2·4% [95% CI -9·7 to 14·4]; FDA primary endpoint). In the safety analysis, 89 (91%) of 98 patients in the rezafungin group and 83 (85%) of 98 patients in the caspofungin group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients in either group were pyrexia, hypokalaemia, pneumonia, septic shock, and anaemia. 55 (56%) patients in the rezafungin group and 52 (53%) patients in the caspofungin group had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Our data show that rezafungin was non-inferior to caspofungin for the primary endpoints of day-14 global cure (EMA) and 30-day all-cause mortality (FDA). Efficacy in the initial days of treatment warrants evaluation. There were no concerning trends in treatment-emergent or serious adverse events. These phase 3 results show the efficacy and safety of rezafungin and support its ongoing development. FUNDING: Cidara Therapeutics and Mundipharma.