Omadacycline is a novel aminomethylcycline approved for the treatment of community‐acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. This article reviews existing data pertaining to the biochemistry, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, in vitro activity, and current progress with omadacycline in clinical trials. Omadacycline inhibits protein synthesis by binding to the 30S subunit of the bacterial ribosome at the tetracycline‐binding site with an affinity similar to glycylcyclines. It is able to bypass older tetracycline resistance mechanisms and demonstrates activity against bacterial strains that are tetracycline resistant. In addition, omadacycline displays broad‐spectrum activity against gram‐positive organisms (including methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin‐resistant enterococci), gram‐negative organisms, atypical organisms, and anaerobes. It has been evaluated against infections in adults both intravenously and orally. Dosage adjustments are not required for patients with renal impairment. Omadacycline displays a comparable efficacy and safety profile to standard‐of‐care agents, with the most common side effects observed being gastrointestinal. Currently available data for omadacycline suggest that this is a promising agent added to our antimicrobial armamentarium.

We observed a higher rate of blood culture contamination during the COVID-19 pandemic at our institution compared to a pre-pandemic period. Given the potential implications of blood contaminants in antibiotic and diagnostic test utilization, and added cost, it is imperative to continue efforts to minimize these episodes during the pandemic.

Background: Ceftriaxone is a third-generation cephalosporin commonly utilized as an empiric antibiotic treatment option in the emergency department (ED). Overuse can lead to decreased susceptibility and emergence of multidrugresistant pathogens, increased costs, and unnecessary adverse effects. Objective: The purpose of this project was to determine the appropriateness of ceftriaxone usage in the ED of a veteran's health care system. Methods: This retrospective chart review included all veterans who received at least one dose of ceftriaxone in the ED between June 1, 2014, and June 1, 2015. The primary outcome was the percentage of appropriate ceftriaxone use. Usage appropriateness was determined on a case-by-case basis by examining current published guidelines and local recommendations based on the institutional antibiogram. Results: Ceftriaxone was prescribed for a wide variety of indications and was determined to be inappropriately prescribed in 164 patients (53%). The most common reason for inappropriate prescribing was lack of a first-line indication for ceftriaxone (64%). Only 120 patients (38.5%) exhibited systemic signs of infection based on vital signs and laboratory parameters, and 25 patients (8%) likely did not require antibiotic therapy at all. Conclusions: Ceftriaxone was used inappropriately in more than half of the patients who received the drug in the ED. The literature on the prescribing habits for ceftriaxone is limited in the United States, but these results are similar to studies conducted in other countries. Attempts should be made to educate prescribers on appropriate indications for the use of ceftriaxone.

Patients with reported penicillin allergies have been proven to experience negative health consequences, such as increased cost, suboptimal antimicrobial therapy, and adverse reactions. Though skin testing has been proposed as a method to clarify penicillin allergies, many institutions may lack the resources to perform skin testing on a wide scale. This literature review describes the current literature surrounding the use of penicillin allergy interviews when skin testing is not an option. Specifically, the review highlights the steps in carrying out a successful antibiotic allergy patient interview, summarizes the clinical evidence surrounding antibiotic allergy clarifications, and addresses key advantages and disadvantages of clarifying antibiotic allergies without the availability of skin testing.

No abstract