No abstract

Introduction Dalbavancin is approved for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) but offers a potential treatment option for complicated invasive gram-positive infections. Importantly, dalbavancin’s real benefits may be in treating complicated infections in vulnerable patient populations, such as persons who inject drugs (PWID). Methods A multicenter retrospective analysis was performed from March 2014 to April 2017 to assess 30- and 90-day clinical cure and adverse drug events (ADEs) in adult patients who received ≥ 1 dose of dalbavancin for a non-ABSSSI indication. Results During the study period, 45 patients received dalbavancin, 28 for a non-ABSSSI indication. The predominant infections treated included osteomyelitis (46%), endovascular infection (25%) and uncomplicated bacteremia (14%). Half of the patients had positive Staphylococcus aureus in cultures, 29% methicillin resistant and 21% methicillin susceptible. Most patients were prescribed dalbavancin as sequential treatment with a median of 13.5 days of prior antibiotic therapy. The most common reason for choosing dalbavancin over standard therapy use was PWID (54%). Seven patients were lost to follow-up at day 30. Of the remaining evaluable patients, 30-day clinical cure was achieved in 15/21 (71%) patients. The most common reason for failure was lack of source control (4/6, 67%). At day 90, relapse occurred in two patients. Three patients had a potential dalbavancin-associated ADE: two patients with renal dysfunction and one patient with pruritus. Conclusions This study demonstrates a possible role for dalbavancin in the treatment of non-ABSSSI invasive gram-positive infections in select vulnerable OPAT patients.

An inpatient penicillin allergy skin testing program can be successfully managed by infectious diseases fellows under attending supervision offering a novel practice area for infectious diseases practitioners.

Based on available data, the use of piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) and FEP in the treatment of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae cannot be widely recommended. However, certain infections and patient characteristics may support for effective use of these alternative agents. In the treatment of infections caused by AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae, FEP has been shown to be a clinically useful carbapenem-sparing alternative. Carbapenems and FEP share many structurally similar characteristics in regards to susceptibility to AmpC β-lactamases, which further create confidence in the use FEP in these situations. Patient and infection specific characteristics should be used to employ FEP optimally.