An unexpected increased HCC recurrence and occurrence rate among HCV patients treated with direct acting antivirals combination has been reported. Aim of the study was the evaluation of early HCC occurrence rate and its risk factors in a HCV infected population, treated with direct-acting-antivirals. According to the Italian ministerial guidelines for direct-acting-antivirals treatment, 1022 consecutive HCV patients treated with direct-acting-antivirals were enrolled. Patients either with active HCC at imaging or history of previous treated HCC, HBV or HIV co-infection, or liver transplant recipients were excluded. The SVR, defined as the persistent absence of detectable serum HCV-RNA 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12), was assessed for all enrolled patients. Abdominal ultrasound was performed before starting antiviral therapy, and repeated every 6 months. HCC was diagnosed according to the international guidelines. Patients showing either nodular patterns suggestive of HCC or with uncertain dynamic vascular behaviour were excluded from a further follow-up. Nine hundred and eighty-five patients completed the 48 weeks follow-up after the end of treatment. A Sofosbuvir-based regimen was administered in the 74.9% of patients, among whom, the 71.6% underwent a simultaneous Ribavirin administration. A sustained virological response at 12 weeks off treatment was documented in 966 patients (98.2%). During the post treatment follow-up HCC was detected in 35 patients, with a cumulative incidence rate of the 3.55%. At multivariate analysis, four variables resulted independently associated with HCC development, both in a cirrhosis based and a class B Child based model, respectively: cirrhosis/class B Child, therapeutic schedule including Sofosbuvir without Ribavirin, liver stiffness values, male gender and presence of diabetes. A multivariate analysis performed on Child A cirrhotic patients, showed that Sofosbuvir based therapeutic treatment without Ribavirin had a HCC occurrence 5.7 higher than Ribavirin-based schedules with or without Sofosbuvir (p < 0.0001, OR: 5.686, 95% CI 2.455–13.169). Our data suggest that early HCC occurrence appears more frequently related to Sofosbuvir-based therapy without Ribavirin which, indeed, seems to play a protective role on HCC onset. Therefore, a careful follow-up should be mandatory, especially in those regimens including Sofosbuvir without Ribavirin.

The best treatment for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections is still a matter of debate. To describe the outcomes of patients treated with cefiderocol for CRAB infections, and to compare the efficacy of cefiderocol versus best available therapy (BAT). We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE to screen original reports published up to September 2023 STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs and observational studies investigating 30-day mortality, clinical failure, microbiological failure or rate of ADRs of patients treated with cefiderocol or BAT PARTICIPANTS: Patients with infections due to CRAB INTERVENTIONS: Cefiderocol in monotherapy or in combination with other potentially active agents or BAT ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs, and the Newcastle Ottawa scale for observational studies. We conducted a meta-analysis pooling Risk ratios (RRs) through random effect models. We screened 801 original reports, and 18 studies (2 RCTs, 13 cohort studies and 3 case-series) were included in the analysis, for a total 733 patients treated with cefiderocol, and 473 receiving the BAT. Among patients receiving cefiderocol, the 30-day mortality rate was 42% (95% CI 38-47%), the rate of microbiological failure 48% (95% CI 31-65%), the clinical failure rate 43% (95% CI 32-55%), and the rate of ADRs was 3% (95% CI 1-6%). A lower mortality rate was observed among patients receiving cefiderocol monotherapy as compared to those treated with combination regimens (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43-0.94, p=0.024). We found a significantly lower mortality rate (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57-0.95, p=0.02) and a lower rate of ADRs (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.09-0.91, p=0.03) in the group treated with cefiderocol as compared to BAT. No difference was observed in microbiological and clinical failure rate. Our data strengthen the efficacy and safety profile of cefiderocol in CRAB infections.

No clear evidence supports the use of cefiderocol as first line treatment in A. baumannii infections. We conducted an observational retrospective/prospective multicenter study including all patients> 18 years with carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAB) infections treated with cefiderocol, from June 12021 to October 30 2022. Primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, secondary end-points the clinical and microbiological response at 7 days and at the end of treatment. Furthermore, we compared the clinical and microbiological outcomes among patients who received cefiderocol in monotherapy or in combination. Thirty-eight patients with forty episodes of infection were included [mean age 65 years (SD+16.3), 75% males, 90% with hospital-acquired infections and 70% showing sepsis or septic shock]. The most common infections included unknown source or catheter-related bacteremia (45%) and pneumonia (40%). We observed at 7 days and at the end of therapy a rate of microbiological failure of 20% and 10%, respectively, and of clinical failure of 47.5% and 32.5%, respectively; the 30-day mortality rate was 47.5%. At multivariate analysis clinical failure at 7 days of treatment was the only independent predictor of 30-day mortality. Comparing monotherapy (used in 72.5%) vs. combination therapy (used in 27.5%), no differences were observed in mortality (51.7 vs 45.5%) and clinical (41.4 vs 63.7%) or microbiological failure (24.1 vs 9.1%). The findings of this study reinforce the effectiveness of cefiderocol in CRAB infections, also as monotherapy. However, prospective multicenter studies with larger sample sizes and a control group treated with standard of care are needed to identify the best treatment for CRAB infections.

Although gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is a very common phenomenon among preterm infants, its therapeutic management is still an issue of debate among neonatologists. A step-wise approach should be advisable, firstly promoting nonpharmacological interventions and limiting drugs to selected infants unresponsive to the conservative measures or who are suffering from severe GER with clinical complications. Despite of this, a concerning pharmacological overtreatment has been increasingly reported. Most of the antireflux drugs, however, have not been specifically assessed in preterm infants; moreover, serious adverse effects have been noticed in association to their administration. This review mainly aims to draw the state of the art regarding the pharmacological management of GER in preterm infants, analyzing the best piecies of evidence currently available on the most prescribed anti-reflux drugs. Although further trials are required, sodium alginate-based formulations might be considered promising; however, data regarding their safety are still limited. Few piecies of evidence on the efficacy of histamine-2 receptor blockers and proton pump inhibitors in preterm infants with GER are currently available. Nevertheless, a significantly increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis and infections has been largely reported in association with their use, thereby leading to an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio. The efficacy of metoclopramide in GER’s improvement still needs to be clarified. Other prokinetic agents, such as domperidone and erythromycin, have been reported to be ineffective, whereas cisapride has been withdrawn due to its remarkable cardiac adverse effects.