Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Treatment for Non-Cystic Fibrosis Bronchiectasis Exacerbations: A Prospective Multicentre Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The recently published guidelines of the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery encourage physicians to use outpatient antimicrobial therapy to treat exacerbations in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB). The published literature on this topic, however, is scarce. METHODS: We report a prospective observational cohort study of patients with NCFB who received treatment at home for at least one exacerbation episode between September 2012 and September 2017 as part of an outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) program. Patients were included in the analysis if they fulfilled all of the following criteria: established diagnosis of bronchiectasis according to current guidelines criteria, clinical exacerbation, requiring intravenous antibiotics because of failure to respond to oral antibiotics, or isolation of a microorganism resistant to oral options. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the treatment of patients with NCFB exacerbations in an OPAT program under "real-world" conditions. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were treated in the OPAT program due to bacterial exacerbations of NCFB. Forty-five (67.2%) patients were admitted to hospital for a median of 7 days before starting OPAT. Sixty-three (94%) patients achieved resolution of the exacerbation at the end of therapy. Four patients needed hospital readmission, and one died. The OPAT program saved 11,586 days of hospital admission, equivalent to EUR 7,866,904. CONCLUSIONS: OPAT appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient strategy for treating patients with exacerbations of NCFB.

Clinical Outcomes of an Innovative Cefazolin Delivery Program for MSSA Infections in OPAT.

Cefazolin is a recommended treatment for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections that has been successfully used in outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) programs. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of cefazolin delivered each day (Group 24) vs. every two days (Group 48) for MSSA infections in OPAT programs. It was a prospective observational study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA infections attended in OPAT. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as completing the antimicrobial regimen without death, treatment discontinuation, or readmission during treatment and follow-up. A univariate and multivariate logistic regression model was built. A two-sided p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Of the 149 MSSA infections treated with cefazolin 2 g/8 h in OPATs, 94 and 55 patients were included in the delivery Group 24 and Group 48, respectively. Treatment failure and unplanned readmission rates were similar in both groups (11.7% vs. 7.3% p = 0.752 and 8.5% vs. 5.5% p = 0.491). There was a significant increase in vascular access complications in Group 24 (33.0%) with respect to Group 48 (7.3%) (p < 0.001). Treating uncomplicated MSSA infection with cefazolin home-delivered every two days through an OPAT program is not associated with an increased risk of treatment failure and entails a significant reduction in resource consumption compared to daily delivery.

Antifungal treatment administered in OPAT programs is a safe and effective option in selected patients.

INTRODUCTION: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) has been recognised as a useful, cost-effective and safe alternative to inpatient treatment. Nevertheless, the most common antimicrobials used are antibiotics, and there is less information about the use of antifungal therapy (AT). The aim of this study is to analyse a cohort of patients treated with AT administered via OPAT and to compare them with patients from the rest of the cohort (RC) treated with antibiotics. METHODS: Prospective observational study with post hoc (or retrospective) analysis of a cohort of patients treated in the OPAT program. We selected the patients treated with antifungals between July 2012 and December 2018. We recorded demographic and clinical data to analyse the validity of the treatment and to compare the differences between the AT and the RC. RESULTS: Of the 1101 patients included in the OPAT program, 24 (2.18%) were treated with AT, 12 Liposomal Amphotericin B, 6 echinocandins and 6 fluconazole. This result is similar to other cohorts. There were differences between the AT vs RC in the number of patients with neoplasia (58.3% vs 28%; p=0.001), IC Charlson>2 (58.3% vs 38.8; p=0.053), duration of treatment (15 days vs 10.39 days; p=0.001) and patients with central catheters (54.2% vs 21.7%; p=0.0001). These differences are justified because there were more hematologic patients included in the AT group. Nevertheless, there were no differences in adverse reactions (25% vs 32.3%; p=0.45) or re-admissions (12.5% vs 10%; p=0.686) and OPAT with AT was successful in 21/24 patients (87.5%). CONCLUSIONS: AT can be successfully administered in OPAT programs in selected patients, that are clinically stable and monitored by an infectious disease physician.

Antifungal treatment administered in OPAT programs is a safe and effective option in selected patients / Tratamiento antifúngico endovenoso domiciliario: una alternativa segura y eficaz

INTRODUCTION: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) has been recognised as a useful, cost-effective and safe alternative to inpatient treatment. Nevertheless, the most common antimicrobials used are antibiotics, and there is less information about the use of antifungal therapy (AT). The aim of this study is to analyse a cohort of patients treated with AT administered via OPAT and to compare them with patients from the rest of the cohort (RC) treated with antibiotics. METHODS: Prospective observational study with post hoc (or retrospective) analysis of a cohort of patients treated in the OPAT program. We selected the patients treated with antifungals between July 2012 and December 2018. We recorded demographic and clinical data to analyse the validity of the treatment and to compare the differences between the AT and the RC. RESULTS: Of the 1101 patients included in the OPAT program, 24 (2.18%) were treated with AT, 12 Liposomal Amphotericin B, 6 echinocandins and 6 fluconazole. This result is similar to other cohorts. There were differences between the AT vs RC in the number of patients with neoplasia (58.3% vs 28%; p = 0.001), IC Charlson > 2 (58.3% vs 38.8; p = 0.053), duration of treatment (15 days vs 10.39 days; p = 0.001) and patients with central catheters (54.2% vs 21.7%; p = 0.0001). These differences are justified because there were more hematologic patients included in the AT group. Nevertheless, there were no differences in adverse reactions (25% vs 32.3%; p = 0.45) or re-admissions (12.5% vs 10%; p = 0.686) and OPAT with AT was successful in 21/24 patients (87.5%). CONCLUSIONS: AT can be successfully administered in OPAT programs in selected patients, that are clinically stable and monitored by an infectious disease physician

INTRODUCCIÓN: El tratamiento antimicrobiano domiciliario endovenoso (TADE) ha sido reconocido como una alternativa al tratamiento hospitalario útil, eficiente y seguro. Sin embargo, los antimicrobianos más utilizados son los antibióticos, y existe menos información sobre el uso de la terapia antimicótica (TA). El objetivo de este estudio es analizar una cohorte de pacientes tratados con TA administrada mediante TADE y compararlos con pacientes del resto de la cohorte (RC) tratados con otros antibióticos. MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo observacional con análisis post hoc (o retrospectivo) de una cohorte de pacientes atendidos en el programa TADE. Seleccionamos a los pacientes tratados con antifúngicos entre julio de 2012 y diciembre de 2018. Registramos los datos demográficos y clínicos para analizar la validez del tratamiento y comparar las diferencias entre la TA y el RC. RESULTADOS: De los 1.101 pacientes incluidos en el programa TADE, 24 (2,18%) fueron tratados con TA: 12 anfotericina B liposómica, 6 equinocandinas y 6 fluconazol. Este resultado es similar a otras cohortes. Hubo diferencias entre la TA vs. RC en el número de pacientes con neoplasia (58,3 vs. 28%; p = 0,001), índice de Charlson > 2 (58,3 vs. 38,8; p = 0,053), duración del tratamiento (15 vs. 10,39 días; p = 0,001) y pacientes con catéteres centrales (54,2 vs. 21,7%; p = 0,0001). Estas diferencias están justificadas porque en el grupo TA se incluyeron más pacientes hematológicos. Sin embargo, no hubo diferencias en las reacciones adversas (25 vs. 32,3%; p = 0,45) o reingresos (12,5 vs. 10%; p = 0,686) y el TADE con TA tuvo éxito en 21/24 pacientes (87,5%). CONCLUSIONES: En pacientes seleccionados, clínicamente estables y en seguimiento por un médico de enfermedades infecciosas, la TA podría administrarse en programas TADE