Ceftolozane-tazobactam (C-T) and ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) are two novel antimicrobials that retain activity against resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa . The comparative effectiveness and safety of C-T versus CAZ-AVI remain unknown.

Aim: To evaluate the efficiency of Bayesian modeling software and first-order pharmacokinetic (PK) equations to calculate vancomycin area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) estimations. Methods: Unblinded, crossover, quasi-experimental study at a tertiary care hospital for patients receiving intravenous vancomycin. Vancomycin AUC monitoring was compared using Bayesian modeling software or first-order PK equations. The primary endpoint was the time taken to estimate the AUC and determine regimen adjustments. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of vancomycin concentrations usable for AUC calculations and acute kidney injury (AKI). Results: Of the 124 patients screened, 34 patients had usable vancomycin concentrations that led to 44 AUC estimations. Without electronic health record (EHR) integration, the time from assessment to intervention in the Bayesian modeling platform was a median of 9.3 min (quartiles Q₁–Q₃ 7.8–12.4) compared to 6.8 min (Q₁–Q₃ 4.8–8.0) in the PK equations group (p = 0.004). With simulated Bayesian software integration into the EHR, however, the median time was 3.8 min (Q₁–Q₃ 2.3–6.9, p = 0.019). Vancomycin concentrations were usable in 88.2% in the Bayesian group compared to 48.3% in the PK equation group and there were no cases of AKI. Conclusion: Without EHR integration, Bayesian software was more time-consuming to assess vancomycin dosing than PK equations. With simulated integration, however, Bayesian software was more time efficient. In addition, vancomycin concentrations were more likely to be usable for calculations in the Bayesian group.

(1) Background: Ceftriaxone is a potential alternative for the treatment of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bloodstream infections (BSIs) in acute care and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) settings. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of ceftriaxone for the treatment of MSSA BSIs. (2) Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from their inception to October 30th 2021. Our outcomes included clinical cure, microbiological cure, 30- and 90-day mortality, 90-day hospital readmission, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). We compared ceftriaxone against standard of care (SOC) therapy. We used the random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and our estimated effects were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). (3) Results: Twelve retrospective cohort studies were included, comprising 1037 patients in the ceftriaxone arms and 2088 patients in the SOC arms. The clinical cure rate of the ceftriaxone regimen was not statistically different from SOC: OR 0.65 (95% CI: 0.29–1.45). Ceftriaxone was also not statistically different from SOC in microbiological cure: OR 1.48 (95% CI: 0.29–7.51); 30-day mortality: OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.14–4.65); 90-day mortality: OR 0.82 (95% CI: 0.38–1.80); 90-day hospital readmission: OR 1.20 (95% CI: 0.92–1.56); and ADRs: OR 0.92 (95% CI: 0.39–2.18). (4) Conclusion: Ceftriaxone could provide an alternative for the treatment of MSSA BSIs in acute care and OPAT settings (except in patients whose BSIs were due to infective endocarditis).

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the management of COVID-19 and several studies have reported bradycardia as a potential side effect associated with this agent. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the incidence rate, severity, and potential risk factors of remdesivir-associated bradycardia.Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study among hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who were treated with remdesivir from March 2020 to October 2021. Our primary outcome of interest was the incidence rate and severity of bradycardia after remdesivir administration. We defined mild bradycardia as a heart rate of 51–59 beats per minute, moderate bradycardia as a heart rate of 41–50 beats per minute, and severe bradycardia as a heart rate of ≤40 beats per minute. We also performed univariable and multivariable regression analyses to determine potential bradycardia risk factors. Baseline characteristics were reported as means with standard deviations or medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs). All the statistical tests are shown as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results: In total, 1,635 patients were included in this study. The median age with IQR was 68 (57–79) years and 51.7% of the patients were male. In total, 606 (37.1%) patients developed bradycardia. Among them, 437 patients (26.7%) developed mild bradycardia, 158 patients (9.7%) moderate bradycardia, while 11 patients (0.7%) experienced severe bradycardia. In our adjusted multivariate logistic regression, the odds of bradycardia development after remdesivir administration were higher among patients with age ≥65 years (OR 1.76, 95% CI: 1.04–2.99, p = 0.04), those with hypertension (OR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.07–1.75, p = 0.01), and obesity (OR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.02–1.68, p = 0.03).Conclusion: More than 1 out of 3 patients (37%) who received remdesivir for COVID-19 developed bradycardia with the majority of these patients developing mild or moderate bradycardia that is usually a benign manifestation not needing treatment in most cases. Age ≥65 years, hypertension, and obesity were potential risk factors for remdesivir-associated bradycardia among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Clinicians should be aware of this adverse event and consider close clinical monitoring for patients at high risk for this adverse event.