Search

Introduction The effect of remdesivir on COVID-19 mortality remains conflicting. Elderly individuals are at risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to assess the effect of remdesivir on COVID-19 mortality among elderly individuals, using real-world data. Methods Retrospective multinational cohort of individuals aged ≥65 years, hospitalized with COVID-19 in six medical centres between January 2020 and May 2021. Associations with in-hospital mortality were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model with propensity score adjustment for remdesivir therapy and while implementing generalized estimating equations to control for centre effect. Sensitivity analysis was performed by stratification according to the degree of respiratory support. Results Of 3010 individuals included, 2788 individuals required either oxygen supplementation or non-invasive/invasive mechanical ventilation, 489 (16%) were treated with remdesivir, and 836 (28%) died. Median age was 77 (IQR 70–84) years and 42% were women. Remdesivir was the only therapeutic intervention associated with decreased mortality [adjusted OR (aOR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.37–0.66, P  < 0.001]. This protective effect was shown for individuals requiring oxygen support and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, while no association was found among individuals necessitating invasive mechanical ventilation. Risk factors for mortality included invasive ventilation (aOR 5.18, 95% CI 2.46–10.91, P  < 0.001), higher serum creatinine (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09–1.43, P  = 0.001) and dyspnoea (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 1.07–1.84, P  = 0.015) on presentation, and other non-modifiable factors, such as comorbidities. Conclusions Among elderly individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, remdesivir carries survival benefit for those with moderate to severe disease. Its role among individuals with critical illness should be further assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Limited data are available to guide colistin use in older adults (>65 years old). We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of colistin in this population.Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of original data from randomized control trials, cohort studies and case-control studies assessing colistin regimens with various comparisons for any infection. Original data were obtained from corresponding authors of original studies. The primary outcome was all-cause 1 month mortality; secondary outcomes included clinical and microbiological outcomes and adverse events, including acute kidney injury. Two independent reviewers screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. ORs with 95% CIs were pooled.Results: We included 38 publications (41 comparisons) reporting 2857 elderly individuals: 29 studies compared a colistin-based regimen versus another regimen (comparison 1) and 10 compared colistin monotherapy versus colistin combination (comparison 2). No significant difference in 1 month mortality was demonstrated between colistin and comparator (comparison 1, OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80-1.60; comparison 2, OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78-1.27). Clinical failure was significantly more likely with colistin-based therapy versus comparator (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.13-2.06). Acute kidney injury was also significantly more common with colistin-based combinations versus other drugs (OR 3.81, 95% CI 2.14-6.77).Conclusions: For older adults, colistin-based therapy resulted in no mortality difference, compared with other regimens, for any infection. Clinical failure and acute kidney injury were significantly more common with colistin-based regimens. Close renal function monitoring is needed while using colistin in older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To describe the population genetics and antibiotic resistance gene distribution of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) isolates causing infections in three Mediterranean countries.Methods: Isolates were collected during the 2013-17 AIDA clinical trial in six hospitals in Israel, Greece and Italy. WGS, bioinformatic characterization and antibiotic resistance profiling were performed.Results: In the 247 CRAB isolates characterized in this study, ST distribution varied by country: 29/31 (93.5%) Greek isolates, 34/41 (82.9%) Italian isolates and 70/175 (40.0%) Israeli isolates belonged to ST2. The identified ST2 isolates included eight distinct clades: 2C, 2D and 2H were significantly more common in Italy, while 2F was unique to Greece. The uncommon ST3 was not present among Greek isolates and constituted only 5/41 (12%) Italian isolates. On the other hand, it was much more common among Israeli isolates: 78/175 (44.6%) belonged to ST3. The vast majority of isolates, 240/247 (97.2%), were found to harbour acquired carbapenemases, primarily blaOXA-23. The chromosomal oxaAb (blaOXA-51-like) and ampC genes characteristic of this organism were also ubiquitous. Most (96.4%) ST3 isolates carried a broad-host-range plasmid IncP1α.Conclusions: The geographical differences in CRAB populations support the theory that clonal spread of CRAB leads to endemicity in hospitals and regions. The close association between antibiotic resistance genes and clades, and between plasmids and STs, suggest that de novo creation of MDR A. baumannii is rare. The clustering of antibiotic resistance genes and plasmids that is unique to each clade/ST, and nearly uniform within clades/STs, suggests that horizontal transmission is rare but crucial to the clade's/ST's success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess whether results of observational studies of potential anti-COVID-19 drugs were reproduced in subsequent randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study, including studies published online between 1 January and 27 October 2020 that evaluated potential COVID-19 treatments and reported all-cause mortality.Results: Of 133 comparisons included in 117 studies, most were non-randomized (104/133, 78%). Hydroxychloroquine was the most common drug type, combined with azithromycin (n = 27, 20%) or alone (n = 22, 16%), followed by IL-6 inhibitors (n = 36, 27%) and corticosteroids (n = 26, 20%). Seventy-one percent (74/104) of non-randomized studies reported adjusted survival results and only 8% (8/104) adjusted for immortal time bias. Only two RCTs (2/29, 7%) reported significant survival benefit, both reporting treatment with corticosteroids, while 32/104 (31%) non-randomized studies showed statistically significant survival benefit associated with the intervention arm. The results of the majority (28/32, 88%) of non-randomized studies reporting survival benefit were not replicated by large-scale RCTs.Conclusions: The results of most non-randomized studies reporting survival benefit of potential anti-COVID-19 drugs were not replicated by large RCTs. Regulators and healthcare professionals should exercise caution and resist the pressure to approve and prescribe drugs of unproven efficacy and potential toxicity to optimize patient care and maintain public trust in medical science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ceftazidime/avibactam is approved for complicated intra-abdominal and urinary tract infections (UTIs) based on results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data regarding its effectiveness in treating hospital-acquired infections or resistant pathogens have not been systematically compiled.Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis including RCTs evaluating ceftazidime/avibactam versus comparator for the treatment of any infection. Primary outcome was 30 day all-cause mortality. Subgroups of hospital-acquired infections and specific resistance phenotypes were planned.Results: Seven publications (eight trials, 4093 patients) were included, reporting a baseline ∼25% of ESBL-carrying Enterobacteriaceae. No significant difference between ceftazidime/avibactam and comparator (mostly carbapenem) was demonstrated for 30 day all-cause mortality, late follow-up mortality and clinical response [relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% CI 0.70-1.72, P = 0.69; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87-1.76, P = 0.25; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-1.01, P = 0.21, respectively, without significant heterogeneity]. Higher microbiological response rate was demonstrated with ceftazidime/avibactam in patients with UTI (RR 1.14, 1.0-1.29, P = 0.05, I2 = 51%). No significant difference in clinical response was demonstrated for patients with ceftazidime-resistant pathogens (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.10, P = 0.66, I2 = 0%). Results for other subgroups of resistant pathogens or hospital-acquired infection were not available. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were significantly more common with ceftazidime/avibactam (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00-1.54, P = 0.05, I2 = 0%).Conclusions: Ceftazidime/avibactam is clinically and microbiologically as effective as carbapenems for treatment of infections in a setting of ∼25% ESBL-carrying Enterobacteriaceae. Safety of the drug should be further evaluated owing to a higher rate of SAEs compared with carbapenems. Further studies should assess the drug's effectiveness in the treatment of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Therapeutic options available to treat MRSA pneumonia are limited. Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is an attractive treatment because of its bactericidal anti-MRSA activity, oral and parenteral formulations and good penetration to the lung tissue. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole with vancomycin in the treatment of healthcare/ventilator-associated MRSA pneumonia.Methods: We carried out a retrospective case-control study of all consecutive hospitalized adult patients diagnosed with MRSA pneumonia at Beilinson Hospital during 2010-15 and treated with either vancomycin or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 30 days and clinical failure at the end of treatment. In order to reduce bias affecting the decision to use a specific antibiotic and as a sensitivity analysis, a propensity-score model for choosing between vancomycin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole was used.Results: We identified 42 patients with MRSA pneumonia treated with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and 39 treated with vancomycin. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Vancomycin-treated patients showed significantly higher 30 day mortality on both multivariate analysis (HR = 5.28; 95% CI = 1.50-18.60; P  < 0.05) and sensitivity analysis with propensity score [vancomycin 13/24 (54.1%) versus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 4/24 (16.7%); P  < 0.05], and higher clinical failure rates [vancomycin 23/39 (59%) versus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 15/42 (35.7%); P  < 0.05], also in the sensitivity analysis with propensity score [vancomycin 14/24 (58.3%) versus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 6/24 (25%); P  < 0.05]. The rates of side effects in both arms were comparable.Conclusions: Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole appears to be superior to vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA pneumonia. A large-scale randomized controlled trial is needed to evaluate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Tigecycline is a novel glycylcycline that exhibits broad-spectrum antibacterial activity. Recently, the US FDA issued a warning concerning increased mortality with tigecycline in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs that compared tigecycline with any other antibiotic regimen for the treatment of any infection. A comprehensive search, without publication status or other restrictions, was conducted. The primary outcome was overall 30 day mortality. The secondary outcome included clinical and microbiological failure, superinfections and adverse events (AEs). The trials’ risks of bias and their effects on results were assessed. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Individual trials’ relative risks (RRs) were pooled using a fixed effect meta-analysis. Results Fifteen trials (7654 patients) were included. Overall mortality was higher with tigecycline compared with other regimens [RR 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.64, without heterogeneity]. The type of infection assessed and the trials’ reported risks of bias did not affect this result. Clinical failure was significantly higher with tigecycline (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06–1.27) and non-statistically significant higher rates of microbiological failure were demonstrated (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99–1.30). Development of septic shock was significantly more frequent with tigecycline (RR 7.01, 95% CI 1.27–38.66). Superinfections were significantly more common with tigecycline and so were AEs, including all AEs and AEs requiring discontinuation. Conclusions In the light of the increased mortality, probably explained by decreased clinical and microbiological efficacy, clinicians should avoid tigecycline monotherapy in the treatment of severe infections and reserve it as a last-resort drug. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Colistin has re-entered clinical use by necessity. We aimed to assess its effectiveness and safety compared with newer antibiotics. Methods: This was a single-centre, prospective cohort study. Inclusion criteria were microbiologically documented pneumonia, urinary tract infection, surgical site infection, meningitis or bacteraemia treated appropriately with colistin versus imipenem, meropenem or ampicillin/sulbactam (comparators). All consecutive patients were included, only once, between May 2006 and July 2009. The primary outcome was 30 day mortality. Multivariable and Cox regression survival analyses were used to adjust comparisons between groups. Odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals are reported. Results: Two hundred patients treated with colistin and 295 patients treated with comparators were included. Treatment with colistin was associated with older age, admission from healthcare facilities, mechanical ventilation and lower rate of early appropriate antibiotic treatment. The 30 day mortality was 39% (78/200) for colistin versus 28.8% (85/295) for comparators; unadjusted OR 1.58 (1.08-2.31). In the adjusted analysis the OR was 1.44 (0.91-2.26) overall and 1.99 (1.06-3.77) for bacteraemic patients (n=220). At the end of follow-up, treatment with colistin was significantly associated with cumulative mortality; adjusted HR 1.27 (1.01-1.60) overall and 1.65 (1.18-2.31) among patients with bacteraemia. Nephrotoxicity at the end of treatment was more frequent with colistin; OR adjusted for other risk factors for nephrotoxicity 3.31 (1.54-7.08). Treatment with colistin was followed by increased incidence of Proteus spp. infections during a 3 month follow-up. Conclusions: The need for colistin treatment is associated with poorer survival. Adjusted analyses suggest that colistin is less effective and more toxic than β-lactam antibiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antibiotics are among the most important interventions in healthcare. Resistance of bacteria to antibiotics threatens the effectiveness of treatment. Systematic reviews of antibiotic treatments often do not address resistance to antibiotics even when data are available in the original studies. This omission creates a skewed view, which emphasizes short-term efficacy and ignores the long-term consequences to the patient and other people. We offer a framework for addressing antibiotic resistance in systematic reviews. We suggest that the data on background resistance in the original trials should be reported and taken into account when interpreting results. Data on emergence of resistance (whether in the body reservoirs or in the bacteria causing infection) are important outcomes. Emergence of resistance should be taken into account when interpreting the evidence on antibiotic treatment in randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]