BackgroundOsteomyelitis is a challenging infection that can involve 4–6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Dalbavancin, approved for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, has potent activity against gram-positive pathogens. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of dalbavancin as a 2-dose regimen for osteomyelitis.MethodsThis study was a randomized, open-label, comparator-controlled trial in adults with a first episode of osteomyelitis defined by clinical symptoms, radiologic findings, and elevated C-reactive protein. Patients were randomized 7:1 to dalbavancin (1500 mg IV on days 1 and 8) or standard of care (SOC) for osteomyelitis (oral or IV) per investigator judgment for 4–6 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical response at day 42, defined as recovery without need for additional antibiotics in the clinically evaluable (CE) population. Clinical response was also assessed at day 21, 6 months, and 1 year.ResultsEighty patients were randomized to dalbavancin (n = 70) or SOC (n = 10). All had baseline debridement; Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen (60% of patients). Clinical cure at day 42 was seen in 65/67 (97%) and 7/8 (88%) patients in the dalbavancin group and SOC group in the CE population, respectively. Clinical response was similar in the dalbavancin group at day 21 (94%), 6 months, and 1 year (96%). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 10 patients in the dalbavancin group; no patient discontinued treatment due to an adverse event.ConclusionsA 2-dose regimen of weekly dalbavancin is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of osteomyelitis in adults.Clinical Trials RegistrationNCT02685033.
RFA for the treatment of GAVE seems feasible and safe, and significantly reduced the need for RBC transfusion and increased the hemoglobin level in this retrospective case series.
RFA seems to significantly decrease clinical symptoms and increase the hemoglobin concentration, thus reducing the need for transfusions.
Background Non-attendance to scheduled hospital outpatient appointments may compromise healthcare resource planning, which ultimately reduces the quality of healthcare provision by delaying assessments and increasing waiting lists. We developed a model for predicting non-attendance and assessed the effectiveness of an intervention for reducing non-attendance based on the model. Methods The study was conducted in three stages: (1) model development, (2) prospective validation of the model with new data, and (3) a clinical assessment with a pilot study that included the model as a stratification tool to select the patients in the intervention. Candidate models were built using retrospective data from appointments scheduled between January 1, 2015, and November 30, 2018, in the dermatology and pneumology outpatient services of the Hospital Municipal de Badalona (Spain). The predictive capacity of the selected model was then validated prospectively with appointments scheduled between January 7 and February 8, 2019. The effectiveness of selective phone call reminders to patients at high risk of non-attendance according to the model was assessed on all consecutive patients with at least one appointment scheduled between February 25 and April 19, 2019. We finally conducted a pilot study in which all patients identified by the model as high risk of non-attendance were randomly assigned to either a control (no intervention) or intervention group, the last receiving phone call reminders one week before the appointment. Results Decision trees were selected for model development. Models were trained and selected using 33,329 appointments in the dermatology service and 21,050 in the pneumology service. Specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy for the prediction of non-attendance were 79.90%, 67.09%, and 73.49% for dermatology, and 71.38%, 57.84%, and 64.61% for pneumology outpatient services. The prospective validation showed a specificity of 78.34% (95%CI 71.07, 84.51) and balanced accuracy of 70.45% for dermatology; and 69.83% (95%CI 60.61, 78.00) for pneumology, respectively. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed on 1,311 individuals identified as high risk of non-attendance according to the selected model. Overall, the intervention resulted in a significant reduction in the non-attendance rate to both the dermatology and pneumology services, with a decrease of 50.61% (p<0.001) and 39.33% (p=0.048), respectively. Conclusions The risk of non-attendance can be adequately estimated using patient information stored in medical records. The patient stratification according to the non-attendance risk allows prioritizing interventions, such as phone call reminders, to effectively reduce non-attendance rates.
Introduction In three phase III randomized controlled trials, ceftaroline fosamil was shown to be non-inferior to vancomycin plus aztreonam for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTIs). This exploratory analysis evaluated the impact of underlying comorbidities on clinical outcomes in patients with cSSTI pooled from these three studies. Methods CANVAS 1 and 2 and COVERS evaluated ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 12 h [q12h]; 600 mg every 8 h [q8h; COVERS]) versus vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g q12h each [CANVAS 1 and 2]; vancomycin 15 mg/kg q12h and aztreonam 1 g q8h [COVERS]) in hospitalized adults with cSSTI. The primary efficacy variable in each trial was clinical response at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. Subgroup analyses were performed on the pooled clinically evaluable (CE) population, exploring the impact of age and various baseline comorbidities. Results Overall, 1808 patients were included in the CE population (1005 ceftaroline fosamil; 803 vancomycin plus aztreonam). Clinical cure rates at TOC were 89.7% (ceftaroline fosamil) and 90.8% (vancomycin plus aztreonam) (difference [95% confidence interval] − 1.13 [− 3.87, 1.67]). Clinical response rates were similar between treatment groups, regardless of age (≤ 65 years or > 65 years), and in subgroups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, cancer/malignancy, renal impairment, and obesity; within these subgroups, efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with those of the overall cSSTI population. Conclusions This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy of ceftaroline fosamil in patients with cSSTI and underlying comorbidities. Trial Registration CANVAS 1, NCT00424190 and CANVAS 2, NCT00423657 (both trials first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov 18/01/2007); COVERS, NCT01499277 (first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov 26/12/2011). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00557-w.
BackgroundPersons who inject drugs (PWID) are at increased risk of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs), a growing healthcare concern. Multiple medical, social, and economic issues, including adherence and comorbidities, complicate the medical care of the PWID population, adversely affecting patient outcomes.MethodsWe assessed demographics and outcomes for the PWID population in a double-blind trial of 698 patients randomized to dalbavancin 1500 mg as a single intravenous (IV) infusion or as a 2-dose regimen (1000 mg IV on day 1; 500 mg IV on day 8) for ABSSSI. The primary endpoint was ≥20% reduction in erythema at 48–72 hours in the intent-to-treat population; clinical status was also assessed at days 14 and 28.ResultsThere were 212/698 (30.4%) patients with a history of injection drug use in this clinical trial. Dalbavancin efficacy was similar between the single- and 2-dose therapy groups in the PWID and non-PWID populations at all timepoints. Dalbavancin was well tolerated in the PWID population, with similar rates of adverse events as the non-PWID population.ConclusionDalbavancin as a single-dose or 2-dose regimen had similar efficacy for the treatment of ABSSSI at all timepoints in the PWID and non-PWID populations. A single 30-minute IV infusion would eliminate the need for indwelling IV access. The convenience of a single dose supervised in a health setting may also optimize treatment adherence in the PWID population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.