Search

Purpose A critical shortage of small-volume parenteral solutions in late 2017 led hospitals to develop strategies to ensure availability for critical patients, including administration of antibiotics as intravenous push (IVP). Minimal literature has been published to date that assesses the safety of administration of beta-lactams via this route. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of IVP administration of select beta-lactam antibiotics. Methods We performed a retrospective review of IVP administrations of aztreonam, ceftriaxone, cefepime, and meropenem at two campuses of the New York University Langone Health system after October 2017. Patients receiving surgical prophylaxis or more than one IVP antibiotic simultaneously were excluded. The primary endpoint was adverse events (ADE) following IVP administration of antibiotics. Results We evaluated 1000 patients who received IVP aztreonam (n = 43), ceftriaxone (n = 544), cefepime (n = 368) or meropenem (n = 45). There were 10 (1%) ADE observed, 5 of which were allergic reactions. Four ADE were neurotoxicity related to IVP cefepime. Based on the Naranjo score, 1 adverse event was “probably” and 3 were “possibly” related to cefepime IVP administration. Lastly, only 1 report of phlebitis was observed with the use of IVP ceftriaxone. Conclusions The use of IVP as an alternative to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) during times of drug shortage for select beta-lactam antibiotics appears to be safe, and ADE are similar to those previously described for IVPB administration. Future studies evaluating clinical outcomes between IVP and IVPB administration may be of benefit.

Background: Midline catheters (MCs) have arisen as alternatives to peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for both general intravenous therapy and extended outpatient parenteral therapy. However, there is a lack of data concerning the safety of medication therapy through midline for extended durations. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety of MCs for extended intravenous use. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who received intravenous therapy through an MC at a tertiary care academic medical center. The primary end point was the incidence of composite catheter-related adverse events that included local events, catheter dislodgment, infiltration, catheter occlusion, catheter-related venous thromboembolism, extravasation, and line-associated infection. Results: A total of 82 MC placements and 50 PICC placements were included; 50 MCs were for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy, and 32 were for inpatient intravenous use. There were 21 complications per 1000 catheter-days in the outpatient group and 7 complications per 1000 catheter-days in the PICC group ( P = 0.91). The median time to complication in both groups was 8 days. The antimicrobial classes commonly associated with complications were cephalosporins, carbapenems, and penicillins. Conclusion and Relevance: Our results suggest that intravenous therapy with MCs is generally safe for prolonged courses that do not exceed 14 days as compared with PICC lines, which can be placed for months. There is still limited evidence for the use of MCs between 14 and 28 days of therapy. This study can help guide our selection of intravenous catheters for the purpose of outpatient antimicrobial therapy.

Background Severe hypoxic respiratory failure from COVID-19 pneumonia carries a high mortality risk. There is uncertainty surrounding which patients benefit from corticosteroids in combination with tocilizumab and the dosage and timing of these agents. The balance of controlling inflammation without increasing the risk of secondary infection is difficult. At present, dexamethasone 6 mg is the standard of care in COVID-19 hypoxia; whether this is the ideal choice of steroid or dosage remains to be proven. Objectives The primary objective was to assess the impact on mortality of tocilizumab only, corticosteroids only, and combination therapy in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure. Methods A multihospital, retrospective study of adult patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19 who received supportive therapy, corticosteroids, tocilizumab, or combination therapy were assessed for 28-day mortality, biomarker improvement, and relative risk of infection. Propensity-matched analysis was performed between corticosteroid alone and combination therapies to further assess mortality benefit. Results The steroid-only, tocilizumab-only, and combination groups showed hazard reduction in mortality at 28 days when compared with supportive therapy. In a propensity-matched analysis, the combination group (daily equivalent dexamethasone 10 mg and tocilizumab 400 mg) had an improved 28-day mortality compared with the steroid-only group (daily equivalent dexamethasone 10 mg; hazard ratio (95% CI) = 0.56 (0.38-0.84), P = 0.005] without increasing the risk of infection. Conclusion and Relevance Combination of tocilizumab and corticosteroids was associated with improved 28-day survival when compared with corticosteroids alone. Modification of steroid dosing strategy as well as steroid type may further optimize therapeutic effect of the COVID-19 treatment.

Background: Cefepime and meropenem are used frequently in hospitalized patients for broad-spectrum empiric coverage, however, practitioners are often reluctant to prescribe these antibiotics for patients with a self-reported nonsevere, nontype I allergic reaction to penicillin. Methods: Retrospective review of electronic medical records of adults with a self-reported allergy to penicillin who received at least 1 dose of cefepime, ceftriaxone, cefoxitin, cephalexin, or meropenem to assess incidence and type of allergic reactions. Results: Of 175 patients included, 10 (6%) patients experienced an allergic reaction. The incidence for individual study drugs were cefepime 6% (6 of 96), meropenem 5% (3 of 56), cefoxitin 8% (1 of 13), ceftriaxone 0% (0 of 69), and cephalexin 0% (0 of 8). The majority of patients experienced a rash with or without pruritus and fever. Patients with a concomitant “sulfa” allergy (odds ratio [OR] 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-21, P = .02) or ≥3 other drug allergies (OR 6.4, 95% CI 1.3-32, P = .025) were more likely to have an allergic reaction. Conclusions: In one of the largest retrospective reviews of hospitalized patients who received full dose therapy with cefepime, ceftriaxone, and meropenem, the incidence of allergic reactions was low and reactions were mild. Cefepime, ceftriaxone, and meropenem can be considered for use in patients with a self-reported nontype I penicillin allergy.

Background: Parameters within reconstitution, storage, stability, and administration may be optimized according to the unique pharmacokinetics of each antibiotic to ensure a successful desensitization. Objective: The study aims to evaluate the successfulness and safety of antibiotic desensitization protocols developed by the pharmacy department at our institution. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at an 800-bed, urban, tertiary care, academic medical center. A total of 36 patients 18 years of age or older, admitted to our intensive care units between March 2013 and July 2017, who underwent antibiotic desensitization utilizing our pharmacy developed protocols were included. Results: In 36 patients, 61 desensitization cases were identified and included; 17 (47%) were male, 27 (75%) were Caucasian, and the median age was 55 years (range 19-94). In all, 15 different antibiotics were administered for desensitization, with meropenem (n = 12, 20%), ampicillin (n = 7, 11%), piperacillin/tazobactam (n = 7, 11%), and penicillin (n = 7, 11%) being the most common; 59 (97%) of 61 desensitizations were completed successfully with or without experiencing reactions, and 53 (89%) of the successful desensitization cases were completed without reactions. Two cases were categorized as anaphylaxis, which was severe enough to terminate the desensitization process. Of the 59 cases successfully completed, the 6 (10%) cases that experienced reactions were managed successfully during desensitization with completion of the process. Conclusion and Relevance: The findings suggest that our pharmacy-developed antibiotic desensitization protocols are successful and safe and may be adapted by other institutions.

Background Cefpodoxime (CPD) and cefuroxime (CFX) are both oral cephalosporins indicated for urinary tract infection (UTI) treatment. CPD may have unfavorable pharmacokinetics (PK) given the lesser degree of renal excretion and urine concentration vs. CFX and risk of collateral damage. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of these two agents for UTI treatment. Methods We conducted a retrospective evaluation among adult patients who received CPD or oral CFX for ≥48 hours for UTI treatment between January 2013 and July 2018. The primary outcome was the rate of subsequent UTI within 90 days following therapy. Safety outcomes included the rate of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and development of isolates resistant to third-generation cephalosporins (TGC) within 90 days. We also examined missed opportunities for antibiotic de-escalation in culture-positive patients. Results Of 747 patients assessed for study inclusion, 295 patients met eligibility criteria (CPD n = 165, CFX n = 130). Median age was 72 years (IQR 55–84) and 71% were female. More patients in the CPD vs. CFX group had pyelonephritis (29% vs. 11%, P = 0.0005) and were treated in the emergency department (42% vs. 16%, P = 0.0005). Escherichia coli was most commonly isolated (n = 139), followed by Klebsiella spp. The rate of subsequent UTI for CPD vs. CFX was 18% vs. 16%, P = 0.647 at median of 25 vs. 32 days, P = 0.399. CDI rate was 1% vs. 2%, P = 0.324 and resistance to TGC was detected in 4% vs. 1%, P = 0.068 for CPD vs. CFX, respectively. Missed opportunities to de-escalate antibiotics based on cultures were found in one-third of patients. After adjusting for multiple factors in multivariate analysis, genitourinary abnormality (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.10–4.29, P = 0.026) and prior history of UTI within 180 days (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.08–4.398, P = 0.03), but not the choice of oral cephalosporin, were the only independent predictors of subsequent UTI. Conclusion Despite less favorable urinary PK of CPD compared with CFX, in this patient cohort, no differences in efficacy or safety between the two agents for UTI treatment were found. These findings warrant further exploration. Stewardship strategies for de-escalation from higher generation cephalosporins to narrow-spectrum antibiotics based on susceptibilities should be implemented. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

The mainstay treatment of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) is antimicrobials with growing support for fecal microbiota transplants. We report the first case of an elderly man with severe refractory NAP-1 pseudomembranous CDI who failed all medical therapy and two fecal transplants with response only seen after administration of intravenous immunoglobulin.

Piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) is frequently used as empirical and targeted therapy for Gram-negative sepsis. Time-dependent killing properties of PTZ support the use of extended-infusion (EI) dosing; however, studies have shown inconsistent benefits of EI PTZ treatment on clinical outcomes. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who received EI PTZ treatment and historical controls who received standard-infusion (SI) PTZ treatment for presumed sepsis syndromes. Data on mortality rates, clinical outcomes, length of stay (LOS), and disease severity were obtained. A total of 843 patients (662 with EI treatment and 181 with SI treatment) were available for analysis. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar, except for fewer female patients receiving EI treatment. No significant differences between the EI and SI groups in inpatient mortality rates (10.9% versus 13.8%; P = 0.282), overall LOS (10 versus 12 days; P = 0.171), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (7 versus 6 days; P = 0.061), or clinical failure rates (18.4% versus 19.9%; P = 0.756) were observed. However, the duration of PTZ therapy was shorter in the EI group (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Among ICU patients, no significant differences in outcomes between the EI and SI groups were observed. Patients with urinary or intra-abdominal infections had lower mortality and clinical failure rates when receiving EI PTZ treatment. We did not observe significant differences in inpatient mortality rates, overall LOS, ICU LOS, or clinical failure rates between patients receiving EI PTZ treatment and patients receiving SI PTZ treatment. Patients receiving EI PTZ treatment had a shorter duration of PTZ therapy than did patients receiving SI treatment, and EI dosing may provide cost savings to hospitals.