There are only a limited number of antimicrobials for treating severe Clostridium difficile infection (sCDI). Tigecycline shows significant in vitro effect against C. difficile and is approved for management of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Our aim was to analyse the efficacy of tigecycline compared with standard therapy (oral vancomycin plus intravenous metronidazole) in adults treated for sCDI. A retrospective cohort study of such patients hospitalized at our department from January 2014 to December 2015 was performed. Patients receiving tigecycline monotherapy were compared with patients treated with standard therapy alone. Diagnosis and severity of CDI were determined according to guidelines of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID). Primary outcome was clinical recovery, secondary outcomes were in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality and relapse, colectomy, and complication rates. Of the 359 patients hospitalized for sCDI, 90 (25.0%) were included, 45 in each group. Patients treated with tigecycline had significantly better outcomes of clinical cure (34/45, 75.6% vs. 24/45, 53.3%; p 0.02), less complicated disease course (13/45, 28.9% vs. 24/45, 53.3%; p 0.02), and less CDI sepsis (7/45, 15.6% vs. 18/45, 40.0%; p 0.009) compared with patients receiving standard therapy. Tigecycline usage was not associated with adverse drug reactions or need for colectomy. Rates of ileus, toxic megacolon, mortality, and relapse were similar between the two groups. Favourable outcomes suggest that tigecycline might be considered as a potential candidate for therapeutic use in cases of sCDI refractory to standard treatment.

Background Community-acquired sepsis is a life-threatening systemic reaction, which starts within ≤72 h of hospital admittance in an infected patient without recent exposure to healthcare risks. Our aim was to evaluate the characteristics and the outcomes concerning community-acquired sepsis among patients admitted to a Hungarian high-influx national medical center. Methods A retrospective, observational cohort study of consecutive adult patients hospitalized with community-acquired sepsis during a 1-year period was executed. Clinical and microbiological data were collected, patients with pre-defined healthcare associations were excluded. Sepsis definitions and severity were given according to ACCP / SCCM criteria. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) admittance, length-of-stay (LOS), source control and bacteraemia rates. Statistical differences were explored with classical comparison tests, predictors of in-hospital all-cause mortality were modelled by multivariate logistic regression. Results 214 patients (median age 60.0 ± 33.1 years, 57% female, median Charlson score 4.0 ± 5.0) were included, 32.7% of them (70/214) had severe sepsis, and 28.5% (61/214) had septic shock. Prevalent sources of infections were genitourinary (53/214, 24.8%) and abdominal (52/214, 24.3%). The causative organisms were dominantly E. coli (60/214, 28.0%), S. pneumoniae (18/214, 8.4%) and S. aureus (14/214, 6.5%), and bacteraemia was documented in 50.9% of the cases (109/214). In-hospital mortality was high (30/214, 14.0%), and independently associated with shock, absence of fever, male gender and the need for ICU admittance, but source control and de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy were protective. ICU admittance was 27.1% (58/214), source control was achieved in 18.2% (39/214). Median LOS was 10.0 ± 8.0, ICU LOS was 8.0 ± 10.8 days. Conclusions Community-acquired sepsis poses a significant burden of disease with characteristic causative agents and sources. Patients at a higher risk for poor outcomes might be identified earlier by the contributing factors shown above.

BackgroundPreliminary data suggests that favipiravir might have a role in COVID-19 treatment. Our aim was to assess the role of favipiravir in the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsA single-center, prospective, observational, sequential cohort study was performed among consecutive adults hospitalized with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 between March– July,2020. Patients were screened for inclusion by a priori criteria, and were included in the favipiravir cohort if SOC+FVP, or the non-favipiravir group if SOC±other antiviral medications without FVP were administered for >48 hours. Treatment allocation was done per national guidelines. For COVID-19 diagnosis and severity, ECDC and WHO definitions were utilized, and daily per protocol hospital follow-up was done. Primary composite end-point was disease progression (14-day all-cause death, need for mechanical ventilation, or immunomodulatory therapy). For statistical comparison, Fisher’s exact test and Mann– Whitney U-test were used.ResultsIn all, 75 patients were included per cohort. In the FVP cohort, chronic heart disease (36/75, 48.0% vs. 16/75, 21.3%, p<0.01) and diabetes mellitus (23/75, 30.7% vs. 10/75, 13.3%, p<0.01) were more prevalent, hospital LOS (18.5±15.5 days vs. 13.0±8.5 days, p<0.01) was higher. Disease progression (17/75, 22.7% vs. 10/75, 13.3%, p=0.13), 14-day all-cause death (9/75, 12.0% vs. 10/75, 13.3%, p=0.8) and need for mechanical ventillation (8/75, 10.7% vs. 4/75, 5.3%, p=0.22) were similar between groups. Immunomodulatory therapies were administered frequently among patients receiving FVP (10/75, 13.3% vs. 1/75, 1.3%, p<0.01).ConclusionsIn this study, favipiravir did not seem to affect disease progression. Further data are needed to position this drug among the anti-SARS-CoV-2 armamentarium.

Data suggests that favipiravir (FVP) could be used against SARS-CoV-2. Our aim was to investigate the role of FVP in COVID-19 treatment. A prospective sequential cohort study was performed among adults hospitalized at our center between March and August 2020 with moderate-to-severe, PCR-confirmed COVID-19. For diagnosis and severity, ECDC and WHO definitions were utilized. Patients were screened for inclusion by a priori criteria and included in the FVP cohort if standard-of-care (SOC) + FVP or the non-FVP cohort if SOC ± other antivirals without FVP were administered for > 48 h from diagnosis. Treatment allocation was done per national guidelines, based on severity and drug availability. Primary endpoint was disease progression, a composite of 14-day all-cause death, need for mechanical ventilation, or immunomodulatory therapy. The impact of FVP exposure on disease progression was analyzed by binomial logistic regression. In all, 150 patients were included, 75 in each cohort. Disease progression (17/75, 22.7% vs. 10/75, 13.3%, p = 0.13), 14-day all-cause death (9/75, 12.0% vs. 10/75, 13.3%, p = 0.8), and need for mechanical ventilation (8/75, 10.7% vs. 4/75, 5.3%, p = 0.22) were similar, while immunomodulatory therapies were required more frequently among patients receiving FVP (10/75, 13.3% vs. 1/75, 1.3%, p < 0.01). The use of favipiravir was not retained as a protective factor against disease progression in multivatiate analysis. Time to antiviral therapy from PCR positivity, disease severity, need for oxygen supportation, and ICU admittance rates did not differ statistically between cohorts. In this study, favipiravir did not seem to positively affect disease progression.

No abstract