Search

Background: Few women have been included in darunavir/cobicistat clinical development studies, and hardly any of them were antiretroviral experienced or treated with anything other than triple-based therapies.Objectives: Our aim was to increase our knowledge about women living with HIV undergoing darunavir/cobicistat-based regimens.Methods: A multicentre (21 hospitals), retrospective study including a centrally selected random sample of HIV-1 patients starting a darunavir/cobicistat-based regimen from June 2014 to March 2017 was planned. Baseline characteristics, 24 and 48 week viral load response (<50 copies/mL), CD4+ lymphocyte count increase, time to change darunavir/cobicistat and adverse event occurrence were all compared by sex. The study was approved by each of the 21 ethics committees, and patients signed informed consent.Results: Out of 761 participants, 193 were women. Similar characteristics were found for both sexes, except that the women had a longer duration of HIV infection (P = 0.001), and were less frequently pre-treated with darunavir/cobicistat in their previous regimen (P = 0.02). The main reason for using a darunavir/cobicistat-based regimen was simplification, without differences by sex, while monotherapy seems to be more frequently prescribed in women than in men (P = 0.067). The main outcomes, HIV viral load response, CD4+ lymphocyte count increase at 24 or 48 weeks, occurrence of adverse events, main reasons for changing and time to the modify darunavir/cobicistat regimen, did not show differences between the sexes.Conclusions: No sex disparities were found in the main study outcomes. These results support the use of a darunavir/cobicistat-based regimen in long-term pre-treated women. Clinical Trial.gov No. NCT03042390. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To investigate the role of previous antibiotic therapy in the risk of recurrence after a Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) treated with vancomycin., Methods: Multicentre observational study. Patients with a CDI episode achieving clinical cure with oral vancomycin and followed up 8 weeks were included. Previous antibiotic exposure up to 90 days was collected. Multivariate analysis of predictors of recurrence adjusted by the propensity score (PS) of being previously treated with each non-CDI antibiotic was performed., Results: Two hundred and forty-one patients were included; 216 (90%) had received systemic antibiotics. Fifty-three patients (22%) had a CDI recurrence. Rates of recurrence were lower in those treated with piperacillin/tazobactam in the last month when compared with those not receiving piperacillin/tazobactam [3 (7%) versus 50 (25%); P  = 0.01], whereas higher rates were seen in those treated with cephalosporins in the last month [26/87 (30%) versus 27/154 (17%); P  = 0.03]. In multivariate analysis controlled by the inverse probability of treatment weighting by PS, receiving ≥ 5 days of piperacillin/tazobactam in the last month as the last antibiotic regimen prior to CDI was independently associated with a lower risk of recurrence [adjusted OR (AOR) 0.13; 95% CI: 0.06-0.29; P  < 0.0001] whereas exposure for ≥ 5 days to cephalosporins (versus piperacillin/tazobactam) was associated with an increased risk (AOR 10.9; 95% CI: 4.4-27.1; P  < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Recent use of piperacillin/tazobactam might be associated with a lower risk of CDI recurrence, while recent use of cephalosporins might promote an increased risk. These findings should be considered when treating hospitalized patients., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.)

Background: Both fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab (used in combination with an antibiotic against Clostridioides difficile) achieve reductions in recurrence rates of C. difficile infection (CDI). However, the two strategies have never been compared., Methods: Data from two retrospective cohorts of 'real-life' use of fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab in combination with a standard anti-C. difficile antibiotic were used to compare the rates of recurrence of both strategies. Since the two cohorts were not identical, we used a propensity score analysis., Results: Three hundred and two patients were included: 244 in the fidaxomicin cohort and 78 in the bezlotoxumab cohort. A history of renal failure or immunosuppression was more frequent in patients receiving bezlotoxumab (39.7% and 66.7% versus 26.6% and 38.9%; P = 0.03 and P < 0.001, respectively), but the severity and number of previous CDI episodes were similar in both cohorts. We observed that 19.3% of the patients in the fidaxomicin cohort experienced recurrence, compared with 14.1% in the bezlotoxumab cohort (OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.71-2.96; P = 0.29) but the difference remained non-significant after propensity score matching using previously defined variables (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.50-3.07; P = 0.64). Moreover, the multivariate analysis did not show differences depending on the drug used., Conclusions: We observed that fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab are prescribed in similar clinical scenarios, although those treated with bezlotoxumab have greater comorbidity. The proportion of recurrences was numerically lower in those treated with bezlotoxumab, although the propensity analysis did not find significant differences between the two drugs., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Patients with a compromised immune system suffer a wide variety of insults. Pulmonary complications remain a major cause of both morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. When such individuals present with radiographic infiltrates, the clinician faces a diagnostic challenge. The differential diagnosis in this setting is broad and includes both infectious and non-infectious conditions. Evaluation of the immunocompromised host with diffuse pulmonary infiltrates can be difficult, frustrating, and time-consuming. This common and serious problem results in significant morbidity and mortality, approaching 90%. Infections are the most common causes of both acute and chronic lung diseases leading to respiratory failure. Non-invasive diagnostic methods for evaluation are often of little value, and an invasive procedure (such as bronchoalveolar lavage, transbronchial biopsy or even open lung biopsy) is therefore performed to obtain a microbiologic and histologic diagnosis. Bronchoscopy allows certain identification of some aetiologies, and often allows the exclusion of infectious agents. Early use of computed tomography scanning is able to demonstrate lesions missed by conventional chest X-ray. However, even when a specific diagnosis is made, it might not impact patient's overall survival and outcomes.

Tedizolid has demonstrated its efficacy and safety in clinical trials; however, data concerning its tolerability in long-term treatments are scarce. The aim of the study was to assess the indications and to describe the long-term safety profile of tedizolid. A multicentric retrospective study of patients who received tedizolid for more than 6 days was conducted. Adverse events (AEs) were identified from patients' medical records and laboratory data. The World Health Organization causality categories were used to discern AEs that were probably associated with tedizolid. Eighty-one patients, treated with tedizolid 200 mg once daily for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of 28 (14 to 59) days, were included; 36 (44.4%) had previously received linezolid. The most common reasons for selecting tedizolid were to avoid linezolid potential toxicities or interactions (53.1%) or due to previous linezolid-related toxicities (27.2%). The most common indications were off-label, including prosthetic joint infections, osteomyelitis, and respiratory infections (77.8%). Overall, 9/81 patients (11.1%) experienced a probably associated AE. Two patients (2.5%) developed gastrointestinal disorders, 1 (1.2%) developed anemia, and 6 developed thrombocytopenia (7.4%) after a median (IQR) duration of treatment of 26.5 (17 to 58.5) days. Four (5%) patients discontinued tedizolid due to AEs. Among 23 patients with chronic renal failure (CRF), the rate of myelotoxicity was 17.4%, and only 8.7% had to stop tedizolid; 20 out of 22 with previous linezolid-associated toxicity had no AE. Long-term tedizolid treatments had good tolerance with rates of gastrointestinal AE and hematological toxicity lower than those reported with linezolid, particularly in patients with CRF and in those with a history of linezolid-associated toxicity., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology.)

Multidrug-resistant Candida auris has emerged as a cause of insidious hospital outbreaks and complicated infections. We present the analysis of an ongoing C. auris outbreak including the largest published series of C. auris bloodstream infection. All C. auris-positive patients from April-2016 to January-2017 were included. Environmental, clinical and microbiological data were recorded. Definitive isolate identification was performed by ITS-rDNA sequencing, and typing by amplified fragment length polymorphism fingerprinting. One hundred and forty patients were colonised by C. auris during the studied period (68% from surgical intensive care). Although control measures were implemented, we were not able to control the outbreak. Forty-one invasive bloodstream infections (87.8% from surgical intensive care) were included. Clinical management included prompt intravascular catheter removal and antifungal therapy with echinocandins. All isolates were fluconazole- and voriconazole-resistant, but echinocandin- and amphotericin B-susceptible. Thirty-day mortality rate was 41.4%, and severe septic metastasis as spondylodiscitis and endocarditis were observed in 5 patients (12%). C. auris was also recovered from inanimate patient surroundings and medical equipment. Despite antifungal treatment, high mortality and late complication rates were recorded. Molecular typing suggested a clonal outbreak different from those previously published., (© 2018 Blackwell Verlag GmbH.)