Search

Background: Pulmonary radiological findings of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been well documented and range from scattered ground-glass infiltrates in milder cases to confluent ground-glass change, dense consolidation, and crazy paving in the critically ill. However, lung cavitation has not been commonly described in these patients. The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of pulmonary cavitation in patients with COVID-19 and describe its characteristics and evolution., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients admitted to our institution with COVID-19 and reviewed electronic medical records and imaging to identify patients who developed pulmonary cavitation., Results: Twelve out of 689 (1.7%) patients admitted to our institution with COVID-19 developed pulmonary cavitation, comprising 3.3% (n = 12/359) of patients who developed COVID-19 pneumonia, and 11% (n = 12/110) of those admitted to the intensive care unit. We describe the imaging characteristics of the cavitation and present the clinical, pharmacological, laboratory, and microbiological parameters for these patients. In this cohort six patients have died, and six discharged home., Conclusion: Cavitary lung disease in patients with severe COVID-19 disease is not uncommon, and is associated with a high level of morbidity and mortality.

Abstract: There are conflicting data regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of HCQ in increasing SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance.Hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were retrospectively included in the study. The primary outcome was the time from a confirmed positive nasopharyngeal swab to turn negative. A negative nasopharyngeal swab conversion was defined as a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 case followed by 2 negative results using RT-PCR assay with samples obtained 24 hours apart. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders.Thirty-four confirmed COVID-19 patients completed the study. Nineteen (55.9%) patients presented with symptoms, and 14 (41.2%) had pneumonia. Only 21 (61.8%) patients received HCQ. The time to SARS-CoV-2 negativity nasopharyngeal test was significantly longer in patients who received HCQ than those who did not receive HCQ [17 (13-21) vs 10 (4-13) days, P = .023]. HCQ was independently associated with time to negativity test after adjustment for potential confounders (symptoms, comorbidities, antiviral drugs, pneumonia, or oxygen therapy) in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (hazard ratio = 0.33, 95% confidence interval: 0.13-0.9, P = .024). On day 14, 47.8% (14/23) patients tested negative in the HCQ group compared with 90.9% (10/11) patients who did not receive HCQ (P = .016).HCQ was associated with a slower viral clearance in COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate disease. Data from ongoing randomized clinical trials with HCQ should provide a definitive answer regarding the efficacy and safety of this treatment., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: This study compared the activity of ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam against 120 bacterial strains, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, isolated from patients admitted to Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates., Methods: In vitro susceptibility was tested using the Etest strip minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) method, and PCR was used to characterize the carbapenemase enzymes produced by CRE strains., Results: All 29 ESBL isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam (MIC 50 0.125μg/ml), whereas all but one were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam (MIC 50 0.38μg/ml). Twenty-seven (45%) CRE isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam (MIC 50 ≥256μg/ml), whereas only six (10%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam (MIC 50 ≥256μg/ml). Very few NDM-1 isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam, whereas the majority of OXA-48 isolates were susceptible. Twenty-nine (94%) P. aeruginosa isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime-avibactam (MIC 50 1.5μg/ml), whereas 30 (97%) isolates were susceptible to ceftolozane-tazobactam (MIC 50 0.75μg/ml)., Conclusions: Ceftolozane-tazobactam and ceftazidime-avibactam showed comparable activity against ESBL and P. aeruginosa, with ceftazidime-avibactam having lower MICs against ESBL isolates and ceftolozane-tazobactam having lower MICs against P. aeruginosa. Ceftazidime-avibactam showed better activity against all CRE isolates except for those carrying the NDM-1 enzyme., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This report describes a longitudinal case of immunocompromised patient post kidney transplant who was admitted to our institution repeatedly for treatment of various infections caused by multi-drug resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. The patient was successfully treated with a combination of ertapenem/meropenem on multiple occasions despite the elevated MICs. Our observations corroborate previous preclinical studies and case reports showing the efficacy of double carbapenem regimens against resistant Enterobacteriaceae.