Background Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorization for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19, based on the interim analysis of EPIC-HR trial. Paxlovid effectiveness needs to be assessed in a noncontrolled setting. In this study we used population-based real world data to evaluate the effectiveness of Paxlovid. Methods The database of the largest healthcare provider in Israel was used to identify all adults aged 18 years or older with first ever positive test for SARS-CoV-2 between January and February 2022, who were at high risk for severe COVID-19 and had no contraindications for Paxlovid use. Patients were included irrespective of their COVID-19 vaccination status. Cox hazard regression was used to estimate the 28 day HR for severe COVID-19 or mortality with Paxlovid examined as time-dependent variable. Results Overall, 180,351 eligible were included, of them only 4,737 (2.6%) were treated with Paxlovid, and 135,482 (75.1%) had adequate COVID-19 vaccination status. Both Paxlovid and adequate COVID-19 vaccination status were associated with significant decrease in the rate of severe COVID-19 or mortality with adjusted HR 0.54 (95% CI, 0.39-0.75) and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.17-0.22), respectively. Paxlovid appears to be more effective in older patients, immunosuppressed patients, and patients with underlying neurological or cardiovascular disease (interaction p-value <0.05 for all). No significant interaction was detected between Paxlovid treatment and COVID-19 vaccination status. Conclusions This study suggests that in the era of omicron and in real life setting Paxlovid is highly effective in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 or mortality.

Candida species have emerged as frequent causes of nosocomial bloodstream infection (BSI) in association with well-defined risk factors, including prolonged hospitalization, abdominal surgery, antibiotic treatment, neutropenia and central venous catheterization (14). Candidemia is associated with high rates of attributable mortality, prolongation of hospital stay, and excessive costs (28). In recent years, there has been a shift in the distribution of Candida species causing invasive infection, with non-albicans species now surpassing Candida albicans in many institutions (14,25). Of particular concern is the rising incidence of the azolenonsusceptible species C. glabrata and the inherently fluconazoleresistant species C. krusei (11,25,27).Fluconazole is often used as empirical treatment of candidemia. However, given the correlation between the survival rate and the timely initiation of appropriate treatment for candidemia (8), accurate assessment of the risk of fluconazole-resistant Candida (FRC) BSI is of prime importance. Patients who were recently treated with an azole drug are at increased risk of infection with FRC (9) and should be treated initially with an echinocandin agent according to current guidelines (18). However, experimental and clinical data support the notion that nonantifungal antimicrobial agents also affect the risk of colonization and infection with FRC (15,17,22). Since exposure to antibacterial drugs among at-risk patients far exceeds exposure to antifungal agents, even modest effects of individual antibacterials could translate into significant overall changes in the susceptibility patterns of Candida spp. Nevertheless, the collateral effects of antibacterial drugs on Candida spp. are poorly understood. To address this question, we analyzed prospectively collected data from a nationwide study of candidemia in Israel and examined the association between exposure to antifungal and antibacterial agents and the risk of infection with FRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study design.We performed a prospective nationwide study of candidemia in Israel from November 2005 through June 2007. Eighteen medical centers, which together account for 75% of the hospital beds in Israel, were included. All candidemia episodes that occurred in the participating centers during the study period were eligible for inclusion in this study. Clinical data were prospectively entered into standardized data forms by on-site investigators at each of the centers. The Candida sp. clinical isolates underwent preliminary identification and susceptibility testing in each center according to local practices. Subsequently, the isolates were transferred together with the corresponding data forms to the central study site, where species identification and susceptibility testing were performed as detailed below. The data forms were collected by the study coordinator, reviewed by the principal investigator, and entered into a computerized database. The study was approved by the ethics committee of each of the participating centers.Data...

IntroductionDue to the increasing burden on hospital systems, most elderly patients with non-surgical sepsis are admitted to general internal medicine departments. Disease-severity scoring systems are used for stratification of patients for utilization management, performance assessment, and clinical research. Some widely used scoring systems for septic patients are inappropriate when rating non-surgical patients in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) environment mainly because their calculations require types of data that are frequently unavailable. This study aimed to assess the fitness of four scoring systems for septic patients hospitalized in general internal medicine departments: modified early warning score (MEWS), simple clinical score (SCS), mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score, and rapid emergency medicine score (REMS).MethodsWe prospectively collected computerized data of septic patients admitted to general internal medicine departments in our community-based university hospital. We followed 28-day in-hospital mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, and 30- and 60-day mortality. Using a logistic regression procedure we calculated the area under ROC curve (AUC) for every scoring system.ResultsBetween February 1st, 2008 and April 30th, 2009 we gathered data of 1,072 patients meeting sepsis criteria on admission to general internal medicine departments. The 28-day mortality was 19.4%. The AUC for the MEWS was 0.65-0.70, for the SCS 0.76-0.79, for the MEDS 0.73-0.75, and for the REMS, 0.74-0.79. Using Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, a lack of fit was found for the MEDS model. All scoring systems performed better than calculations based on sepsis severity.ConclusionsThe SCS and REMS are the most appropriate clinical scores to predict the mortality of patients with sepsis in general internal medicine departments.