Objectives To analyse the characteristics and predictors of death in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Spain. Methods A retrospective observational study was performed of the first consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 confirmed by real-time PCR assay in 127 Spanish centres until 17 March 2020. The follow-up censoring date was 17 April 2020. We collected demographic, clinical, laboratory, treatment and complications data. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with death. Results Of the 4035 patients, male subjects accounted for 2433 (61.0%) of 3987, the median age was 70 years and 2539 (73.8%) of 3439 had one or more comorbidity. The most common symptoms were a history of fever, cough, malaise and dyspnoea. During hospitalization, 1255 (31.5%) of 3979 patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 736 (18.5%) of 3988 were admitted to intensive care units and 619 (15.5%) of 3992 underwent mechanical ventilation. Virus- or host-targeted medications included lopinavir/ritonavir (2820/4005, 70.4%), hydroxychloroquine (2618/3995, 65.5%), interferon beta (1153/3950, 29.2%), corticosteroids (1109/3965, 28.0%) and tocilizumab (373/3951, 9.4%). Overall, 1131 (28%) of 4035 patients died. Mortality increased with age (85.6% occurring in older than 65 years). Seventeen factors were independently associated with an increased hazard of death, the strongest among them including advanced age, liver cirrhosis, low age-adjusted oxygen saturation, higher concentrations of C-reactive protein and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. Conclusions Our findings provide comprehensive information about characteristics and complications of severe COVID-19, and may help clinicians identify patients at a higher risk of death.

Background The clinical presentation of COVID-19 in patients admitted to hospital is heterogeneous. We aimed to determine whether clinical phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be derived from clinical data, to assess the reproducibility of these phenotypes and correlation with prognosis, and to derive and validate a simplified probabilistic model for phenotype assignment. Phenotype identification was not primarily intended as a predictive tool for mortality. MethodsIn this study, we used data from two cohorts: the COVID-19@Spain cohort, a retrospective cohort including 4035 consecutive adult patients admitted to 127 hospitals in Spain with COVID-19 between Feb 2 and March 17, 2020, and the COVID-19@HULP cohort, including 2226 consecutive adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Madrid between Feb 25 and April 19, 2020. The COVID-19@Spain cohort was divided into a derivation cohort, comprising 2667 randomly selected patients, and an internal validation cohort, comprising the remaining 1368 patients. The COVID-19@HULP cohort was used as an external validation cohort. A probabilistic model for phenotype assignment was derived in the derivation cohort using multinomial logistic regression and validated in the internal validation cohort. The model was also applied to the external validation cohort. 30-day mortality and other prognostic variables were assessed in the derived phenotypes and in the phenotypes assigned by the probabilistic model. Findings Three distinct phenotypes were derived in the derivation cohort (n=2667)-phenotype A (516 [19%] patients), phenotype B (1955 [73%]) and phenotype C (196 [7%])-and reproduced in the internal validation cohort (n=1368)phenotype A (233 [17%] patients), phenotype B (1019 [74%]), and phenotype C (116 [8%]). Patients with phenotype A were younger, were less frequently male, had mild viral symptoms, and had normal inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype B included more patients with obesity, lymphocytopenia, and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype C included older patients with more comorbidities and even higher inflammatory parameters than phenotype B. We developed a simplified probabilistic model (validated in the internal validation cohort) for phenotype assignment, including 16 variables. In the derivation cohort, 30-day mortality rates were 2•5% (95% CI 1•4-4•3) for patients with phenotype A, 30•5% (28•5-32•6) for patients with phenotype B, and 60•7% (53•7-67•2) for patients with phenotype C (log-rank test p<0•0001). The predicted phenotypes in the internal validation cohort and external validation cohort showed similar mortality rates to the assigned phenotypes (internal validation cohort: 5•3% [95% CI 3•4-8•1] for phenotype A, 31•3% [28•5-34•2] for phenotype B, and 59•5% [48•8-69•3] for phenotype C; external validation cohort: 3•7% [2•0-6•4] for phenotype A, 23•7% [21•8-25•7] for phenotype B, and 51•4% [41•9-60•7] for phenotype C).Interpretation Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can be classified into three...

ObjectivesTo analyse the effectiveness of dalbavancin (DBV) in clinical practice as consolidation therapy in patients with bloodstream infection (BSI) and/or infective endocarditis (IE) produced by gram-positive cocci (GPC), as well as its safety and pharmacoeconomic impact.MethodsA multicentre, observational and retrospective study was conducted of hospitalised patients with IE and/or BSI produced by GPC who received at least one dose of DBV. Clinical response was assessed during hospitalization, at 3 months and at 1 year.ResultsEighty-three patients with median age of 73 years were enrolled; 73.5% were male; 59.04% had BSI and 49.04% IE (44.04% prosthetic valve IE, 32.4% native IE, 23.5% pacemaker lead). The most frequently isolated microorganism was Staphylococcus aureus in BSI (49%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci in IE (44.1%). All patients with IE were clinically cured in hospital; at 12 months, there was 2.9% loss to follow-up, 8.8% mortality unrelated to IE, and 2.9% therapeutic failure rate. The percentage effectiveness of DBV to treat IE was 96.7%. The clinical cure rate for BSI was 100% during hospital stay and at 3 months; there were no recurrences or deaths during the follow-up. No patient discontinued treatment for adverse events. The saving in hospital stay was 636 days for BSI (315,424.20€) and 557 days for IE (283,187.45€).ConclusionsDBV is an effective consolidation antibiotic therapy in clinically stabilized patients with IE and/or BSI. It proved to be a cost-effective treatment, reducing the hospital stay, thanks to the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile of this drug.

No abstract

This randomized clinical trial investigates noninferiority of fosfomycin vs ceftriaxone or meropenem in achieving clinical and microbiological cure among patients with urinary tract infections due to multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli .

Background Outpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment (OPAT) has proven efficacious for treating infective endocarditis (IE). However, the 2001 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria for OPAT in IE are very restrictive. We aimed to compare the outcomes of OPAT with those of hospital-based antibiotic treatment (HBAT). Methods Retrospective analysis of data from a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 2000 consecutive IE patients in 25 Spanish hospitals (2008–2012) was performed. Results A total of 429 patients (21.5%) received OPAT, and only 21.7% fulfilled IDSA criteria. Males accounted for 70.5%, median age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 56–76), and 57% had native-valve IE. The most frequent causal microorganisms were viridans group streptococci (18.6%), Staphylococcus aureus (15.6%), and coagulase-negative staphylococci (14.5%). Median length of antibiotic treatment was 42 days (IQR, 32–54), and 44% of patients underwent cardiac surgery. One-year mortality was 8% (42% for HBAT; P < .001), 1.4% of patients relapsed, and 10.9% were readmitted during the first 3 months after discharge (no significant differences compared with HBAT). Charlson score (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.42; P = .01) and cardiac surgery (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, .09–.63; P = .04) were associated with 1-year mortality, whereas aortic valve involvement (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, .22–.98; P = .007) was the only predictor of 1-year readmission. Failing to fulfill IDSA criteria was not a risk factor for mortality or readmission. Conclusions OPAT provided excellent results despite the use of broader criteria than those recommended by IDSA. OPAT criteria should therefore be expanded.

No abstract

The selection of the best alternative for Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis (IE) continuation treatment in the outpatient setting is still challenging. Three databases were searched, reporting antibiotic therapies against E. faecalis IE in or suitable for the outpatient setting. Articles the results of which were identified by species and treatment regimen were included. The quality of the studies was assessed accordingly with the study design. Data were extracted and synthesized narratively. In total, 18 studies were included. The treatment regimens reported were classified regarding the main antibiotic used as regimen, based on Aminoglycosides, dual β-lactam, teicoplanin, daptomycin or dalbavancin or oral therapy. The regimens based on aminoglycosides and dual β-lactam combinations are the treatment alternatives which gather more evidence regarding their efficacy. Dual β-lactam is the preferred option for high level aminoglycoside resistance strains, and for to its reduced nephrotoxicity, while its adaptation to the outpatient setting has been poorly documented. Less evidence supports the remaining alternatives, but many of them have been successfully adapted to outpatient care. Teicoplanin and dalbavancin as well as oral therapy seem promising. Our work provides an extensive examination of the potential alternatives to E. faecalis IE useful for outpatient care. However, the insufficient evidence hampers the attempt to give a general recommendation.