Background Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) increase morbidity and mortality, prolong hospitalization and generate considerable medical costs. Recent guidelines for CRBSI recommend empirical therapy against Gram-positive bacteria (GPB) and restrict coverage for Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) only to specific circumstances. Objectives To investigate predictors of GNB aetiology in CRBSI and to assess the predictors of outcome in patients with CRBSI. Methods Patients with CRBSI were selected from the PROBAC cohort, a prospective, observational, multicentre national cohort study including patients with bloodstream infections consecutively admitted to 26 Spanish hospitals in a 6 month period (October 2016–March 2017). Outcome variables were GNB aetiology and 30 day mortality. Adjusted analyses were performed by logistic regression. Results Six hundred and thirty-one episodes of CRBSI were included in the study. Risk factors independently related to GNB aetiology were central venous catheter (CVC) [OR 1.60 (95% CI: 1.05–2.44), P = 0.028], sepsis/septic shock [OR: 1.76 (95% CI: 1.11–2.80), P = 0.016], antibiotic therapy in the previous 30 days [OR: 1.56 (95% CI: 1.02–2.36), P = 0.037], neutropenia <500/μL [OR: 2.01 (95% CI: 1.04–3.87), P = 0.037] and peripheral vascular disease [OR: 2.04 (95% CI: 1.13–3.68), P = 0.018]. GNB were not associated with increased mortality in adjusted analysis, while removal of catheter [OR: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.09–0.61), P = 0.002] and adequate empirical treatment [OR: 0.37 (95% CI: 0.18–0.77), P = 0.008] were strong protective factors. Conclusions Our study reinforces the recommendation that empirical coverage should cover GNB in patients presenting with sepsis/septic shock and in neutropenic patients. Catheter removal and adequate empirical treatment were both protective factors against mortality in patients with CRBSI.

No abstract

No abstract

In this phase II, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial of 115 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and systemic inflammation, early use of sarilumab was associated with a low risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring high-flow devices or mechanical ventilation. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of early treatment with sarilumab, added to standard of care (SOC), in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. Methods: Phase II, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and interleukin (IL)-6 levels ≥ 40 pg/mL and/or D-dimer > 1500 ng/mL. Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to receive SOC (control group), SOC plus a single subcutaneous dose of sarilumab 200 mg (Sarilumab-200) or SOC plus a single subcutaneous dose of sarilumab 400 mg (Sarilumab-400). The primary outcome variable was the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) at day 28. Results: One-hundred and fifteen participants (control group, n = 39; Sarilumab-200, n = 37; Sarilumab-400, n = 39) were included. At randomization, 104 (90%) patients had supplemental oxygen and 103 (90%) received corticosteroids. Eleven (28%) patients in the control group, ten (27%) in Sarilumab-200 and five (13%) in Sarilumab-400 developed the primary outcome (hazard ratio [95% CI] of Sarilumab-400 vs control group: 0.41 [0.14-1.18]; p=0.09). Seven (6%) patients died: three in the control group and four in Sarilumab-200. There were no deaths in Sarilumab-400 (p = 0.079, log-rank test for comparisons with the control group). Conclusion: In patients recently hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia and features of systemic inflammation, early IL-6 blockade with a single dose of sarilumab 400 mg was safe and associated with a trend for better outcomes.

Biliary tract infections are frequent, and a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Bacteremia is common in these infections, particularly in the elderly and patients with cancer.

No abstract

Community-onset bloodstream infections (CO-BSI) caused by gram-negative bacilli are common and associated with significant mortality; those caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa are associated with worse prognosis and higher rates of inadequateempirical antibiotic treatment. The aims of this study were to describe the characteristics of patients with CO-BSI caused by P. aeruginosa, to identify predictors, and to develop a predictive score for P. aeruginosa CO-BSI. Materials/methods: PROBAC is a prospective cohort including patients >14 years with BSI from 26 Spanish hospitals between October 2016 and May 2017. Patients with monomicrobial P. aeruginosa CO-BSI and monomicrobial Enterobacterales CO-BSI were included. Variables of interest were collected. Independent predictors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa CO-BSI were identified by logistic regression and a prediction score was developed. Results: A total of 78patients with P. aeruginosa CO-BSI and 2572 with Enterobacterales CO-BSI were included. Patients with P. aeruginosa had a median age of 70 years (IQR 60–79), 68.8% were male, median Charlson score was 5 (IQR 3–7), and 30-daymortality was 18.5%. Multivariate analysis identified the following predictors of CO-BSI-PA [adjusted OR (95% CI)]: male gender [1.89 (1.14–3.12)], haematological malignancy [2.45 (1.20–4.99)], obstructive uropathy [2.86 (1.13–3.02)], source of infection other than urinary tract, biliary tract or intra-abdominal [6.69 (4.10–10.92)] and healthcare-associated BSI [1.85 (1.13–3.02)]. Anindex predictive of CO-BSI-PA was developed; scores ≥ 3.5 showed a negative predictive value of 89% and an area under the receiver operator curve (ROC) of 0.66. Conclusions: We did not find a good predictive score of P. aeruginosa CO-BSI due to its relatively low incidence in the overall population. Our model includes variables that are easy to collect in real clinical practice and could be useful to detect patients with very low risk of P. aeruginosa CO-BSI.

Ceftobiprole is a broad-spectrum, fifth-generation cephalosporin currently approved for community-acquired and non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia. High bactericidal and anti-biofilm activity has been exhibited in in vitro and animal models. This, together with its synergism with other antibiotics against gram-positive bacteria, makes it an ideal candidate for treatment of complex infections, such as those associated with devices or infective endocarditis. More clinical data are needed to achieve drug positioning.