The comparative efficacy of ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem-vaborbactam for treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections remains unknown. This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of adults with CRE infections who received ceftazidime-avibactam or meropenem-vaborbactam for ≥72 hours from February 2015 to October 2018. Patients with a localized urinary tract infection and repeat study drug exposures after the first episode were excluded. The primary endpoint was clinical success compared between treatment groups. Secondary endpoints included 30- and 90-day mortality, adverse events (AE), 90-day CRE infection recurrence, and development of resistance in patients with recurrent infection. A post hoc subgroup analysis was completed comparing patients who received ceftazidime-avibactam monotherapy, ceftazidime-avibactam combination therapy, and meropenem-vaborbactam monotherapy. A total of 131 patients were included (ceftazidime-avibactam, n = 105; meropenem-vaborbactam, n = 26), 40% of whom had bacteremia. No significant difference in clinical success was observed between groups (62% versus 69%; P = 0.49). Patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam arm received combination therapy more often than patients in the meropenem-vaborbactam arm (61% versus 15%; P < 0.01). No difference in 30- and 90-day mortality resulted, and rates of AE were similar between groups. In patients with recurrent infection, development of resistance occurred in three patients that received ceftazidime-avibactam monotherapy and in no patients in the meropenem-vaborbactam arm. Clinical success was similar between patients receiving ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem-vaborbactam for treatment of CRE infections, despite ceftazidime-avibactam being used more often as a combination therapy. Development of resistance was more common with ceftazidime-avibactam monotherapy.

Background Clinicians may be less inclined to consider a diagnosis of cryptococcal meningitis in people without HIV infection or transplant-related immunosuppression. This may lead to a delay in diagnosis particularly if disseminated cryptococcal disease mimics cerebral septic emboli in injection drug use (IDU) leading to a search for endocarditis or other infectious sources. Though, IDU has been described as a potential risk for disseminated cryptococcal disease. Case presentations We present two cases of cryptococcal meningitis in IDU without HIV or other obvious immune deficits. Both patients presented with at least 2 weeks of headache and blurred vision. They developed central nervous system (CNS) vasculitis, one of which mimicked septic cerebral emboli, but both resulted with poor neurologic outcomes. Conclusions IDU likely induces an underappreciated immune deficit and is a risk factor for developing cryptococcal meningitis. This diagnosis, which can mimic cerebral septic emboli through involvement of a CNS vasculitis, should be considered in the setting of IDU.

Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author's name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pagination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award.

Background Telemedicine (TM) programs can be implemented to deliver specialty care through virtual platforms and overcome geographic/resource constraints. Few data exist to describe outcomes associated with TM-based infectious diseases (ID) management. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes associated with TM and on-site standard of care (SOC) ID consultation after implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS)-led S. aureus bacteremia (SAB) bundle. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted on the effects of a SAB bundle comparing ID consult delivery (SOC or TM) at 10 US hospitals within Atrium Health in adult patients admitted September 2016 through December 2017. Type of ID consult provided was based on admitting hospital; no hospital had both modalities. Bundle components included: (1) ID consult, (2) appropriate antibiotics, (3) repeat blood cultures until clearance, (4) echocardiogram obtainment, and (5) appropriate antibiotic duration. AMS facilitated bundle initiation and compliance. The primary outcome was bundle adherence between groups. Differences in clinical outcomes were also assessed. Results We evaluated 738 patients with SAB (576 with SOC, 162 with TM ID). No differences were observed in overall bundle adherence (SOC 86% vs TM 89%, p = 0.33). Additionally, no significant differences resulted between groups for hospital mortality, 30-day SAB-related readmission, persistent bacteremia, and culture clearance. Groups did not differ in 30-day mortality when controlling for demographics, bacteremia source, and physiological measures with multivariable logistic regression. Conclusion Our findings provide evidence to support effective use of TM ID consultation and AMS-led care bundles for SAB management in resource-limited settings.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract