Search

Additional file 1.

In dit overzichtsartikel geven wij een update van de adviezen voor de medicamenteuze behandeling van covid-19 in de tweede lijn. Deze adviezen zijn opgesteld door de Stichting Werkgroep Antibioticabeleid (SWAB) in samenwerking met onder andere de Federatie Medisch Specialisten (FMS). Zowel opties voor behandeling in het ziekenhuis als opties voor behandeling in de ambulante setting worden besproken. De behandeling omvat zowel anti-inflammatoire als antivirale therapie.

Additional file 1. sTable 1. Alternative empirical treatment strategies in sepsis and low estimated risk of involvement of 3GCR-E. sTable 2. Alternative empirical treatment strategies in sepsis and increased or high estimated risk of involvement of 3GCR-E. sTable 3. Recommended iv doses of empirical antibacterial treatment for sepsis.

Objective At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands, the Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy constructed an advisory document about off-label drug treatment options that was regularly updated with new scientific findings. The aim of this study is to describe the dynamics in applied COVID-19 pharmacotherapy during the first 100 days of the pandemic and to assess how the national advisory document influenced local hospital policies. Methods A multicentre observational cohort study was conducted in six hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted between 27 February and 7 June 2020 were studied. Drug prescription data were collected and percentages of patients receiving a specific treatment were calculated. These percentages were plotted together with release dates of the national advisory document. Semi-structured in-depth interviews with hospital pharmacists and infectious diseases specialists were conducted to gain insight into the development and implementation of pharmacotherapy treatment protocols in hospitals. Results Data from 1511 patients (60% men, mean age 66 years) were analysed. From mid-March (hydroxy)chloroquine was being prescribed in all six hospitals to approximately 70% of patients at admission. Frequencies of other off-label treatments were below 2%. In the week of 6 April 2020, the first hospital discontinued prescribing (hydroxy)chloroquine and the last hospital discontinued in the week of 4 May 2020 (total range −19 to +10 days after the national advisory document advised against its use (1 May 2020)). All interviewees (n=6) stated that the hospitals based their policies mainly on the national advisory document but also assessed scientific literature themselves. Order panels were constructed to support prescribing. Conclusion Dutch hospitals opted en masse for (hydroxy)chloroquine as COVID-19 therapy at the start of the pandemic, although the time until the therapy was no longer prescribed differed by several weeks. The fact that hospitals defined pharmacotherapy regimens based on their own assessment of the scientific literature besides the national advisory document can explain this variation.

Much has changed in the medical treatment of COVID-19 after the first patient with an infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the Netherlands was diagnosed in February 2020. On the basis of limited data, at first only off-label use of (hydroxy)chloroquine seemed to be a treatment option. However, now based on the findings of several randomized studies, other medicines have been included in the Dutch guidelines about the treatment of COVID-19. In this article, we will briefly discuss the current state of affairs with regard to the drugs (hydroxy) chloroquine, remdesivir and corticosteroids. Again, it appears that only well-executed randomized clinical trials can determine the status of various supposedly effective drugs.

The worldwide rapid increase in antibiotic resistance means that new therapeutic measures are urgently needed. Older antibiotics, such as colistin, fosfomycin, minocycline, mecillinam and temocillin, which had fallen from grace due to the development of more effective and less toxic drugs are now of renewed interest in the treatment of infections caused by multiresistant bacteria. Two new glycopeptides (oritavancin and dalbavancin) and a new oxazolidinone (tedizolid) are now registered for the treatment of acute skin and soft-tissue infections. In the treatment of infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria, cephalosporins are combined with beta-lactamase inhibitors which protect them from various beta-lactamases and also make them effective against extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria. Examples of these are ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem-vaborbactam. Results of preclinical research on the effectiveness of new antibiotics are hopeful. There has been a great increase in investment in the development of new antimicrobials. Also, regulatory agencies have accelerated their assessment of these new - and urgently needed - drugs.

Reducing disaster risks and adapting to climate change are ever more important policy goals in Europe and worldwide. The commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and complementary multilateral frameworks, including the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, has galvanized pursuits for policy coherence. The report Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe: enhancing coherence of the knowledge base, policies and practices of the European Environment Agency identified several ways for how coherence and resilience can be built through knowledge sharing, collaboration and investments.

OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines for empiric antibiotic treatment poorly predict the presence of 3rd generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae bacteraemia (3GCR-E-Bac) as a cause of infection, thereby increasing unnecessary carbapenem use. We aimed to develop diagnostic scoring systems to better predict the presence of 3GCR-E-Bac. METHODS: A retrospective nested case-control study was performed that included patients ≥18 years from eight Dutch hospitals in whom blood cultures were obtained and intravenous antibiotics were initiated. Each patient with 3GCR-E-Bac was matched to four control infection episodes within the same hospital, based on blood culture date and onset location (community or hospital). Starting from 32 commonly described clinical risk factors available at infection onset, selection strategies were used to derive scoring systems for the probability of community- and hospital-onset 3GCR-E-Bac. RESULTS: 3GCR-E-Bac occurred in 90 of 22,506 (0.4%) community-onset and in 82 of 8,110 (1.0%) hospital-onset infections, and these cases were matched to 360 community-onset and 328 hospital-onset control episodes. The derived community-onset and hospital-onset scoring systems consisted of 6 and 9 predictors, respectively. With selected score cutoffs, the models identified 3GCR-E-Bac with equal sensitivity as existing guidelines (community-onset: 54.3%; hospital-onset: 81.5%). Yet, they reduced the proportion of patients classified as at risk for 3GCR-E-Bac (i.e. eligible for empiric carbapenem therapy) with 40% (95% confidence interval 21-56%) and 49% (95% confidence interval 39-58%) in, respectively, community-onset and hospital-onset infection. CONCLUSIONS: These prediction scores for 3GCR-E-Bac, specifically geared towards the initiation of empiric antibiotic treatment, may improve the balance between inappropriate antibiotics and carbapenem overuse.