Healthcare-associated infections can occur in different care units and can affect both patients and healthcare professionals. Bacteria represent the most common cause of nosocomial infections and, due to the excessive and irrational use of antibiotics, resistant organisms have appeared. The most important healthcare-associated infections are central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, surgical site, soft tissue infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia, hospital acquired pneumonia, and Clostridioides difficile colitis. In Europe, some hospitalized patients develop nosocomial infections that lead to increased costs and prolonged hospitalizations. Healthcare-associated infection prevalence in developed countries is lower than in low-income and middle-income countries such as Romania, an Eastern European country, where several factors contribute to the occurrence of many nosocomial infections, but official data show a low reporting rate. For the rapid identification of bacteria that can cause these infections, fast, sensitive, and specific methods are needed, and they should be cost-effective. Therefore, this review focuses on the current situation regarding healthcare-associated infections in Europe and Romania, with discussions regarding the causes and possible solutions. As a possible weapon in the fight against the healthcare-associated infections, the diagnosis methods and tests used to determine the bacteria involved in healthcare-associated infections are evaluated.

A judicious antibiotic therapy is one of the challenges in the therapy of critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock. The pathophysiological changes in these patients significantly alter the antibiotic pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) with important consequences in reaching the therapeutic targets or the risk of side effects. The use of linezolid, an oxazolidinone antibiotic, in intensive care is such an example. The optimization of its therapeutic effects, administration in intermittent (II) or continuous infusion (CI) is gaining increased interest. In a systematic review of the main databases, we propose a detailed analysis of the main PK/PD determinants, their relationship with the clinical therapeutic response and the occurrence of adverse effects following II or CI of linezolid to different classes of critically ill patients or in Monte Carlo simulations.

The elderly are frequently exposed to drug related problems causing hospitalizations and increased costs of care. Information about Romanian prescribing practices among the elderly and potential medication associated- risks is lacking. The objective of this study was to identify and compare the most frequent potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) recommended to ambulatory and institutionalized Romanian elderly, through an observational retrospective design. All reimbursed medications prescribed to a sample of ambulatory elderly accessing two community pharmacies and all medications recommended to a group of institutionalized elderly (urban facilities, Romania, same month) were analyzed. The STOPP/START criteria and the PRISCUS list were used for PIM identification and for classification as misprescribed, underprescribed or overprescribed -subtypes. The analysis involved 345 prescriptions recommended to ambulatory elderly and 91 medical files available for the institutionalized patients. The ambulatory elderly had a mean age of 74.8 years old and were daily exposed to a median number of 3 prescribed medications. The institutionalized elderly were older (mean age 80.77) received 8 medications daily and 69 % of them were functionally dependent. Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric indications were the most frequent: 64.34 % and 18.55 % of the ambulatory prescriptions, 93.40 % and 41.75 % of the institutionalized patients’ medical files. 159 PIM were identified on 34.49 % of the ambulatory prescriptions. 82.41 % of the institutionalized patients’ medical files contained 140 PIM. The potential underprescribing of cardiovascular therapies was the most frequent PIM category on the ambulatory prescriptions (55.34 % of all PIM), while for the institutionalized patients’ medical files, the misprescribed and overprescribed PIM were those predominantly represented (62.14 % and 27.14 % of all PIM). In both subgroups of data, NSAIDs (56.66 % of ambulatory prescriptions and 35.63 % of institutionalized patients’ data) and benzodiazepines (26.66 % of ambulatory prescriptions and 24.13 % of institutionalized patient’s data) were predominantly misprescribed. Anticholinergics were rarely used (0.62 % of total PIM from ambulatory prescriptions, 2.14 % of total PIM from institutionalized patients’ data). The PIM identified in both elderly groups suggested potential risks for the occurrence of adverse events specific to the elderly population. Larger studies, both observational and interventional, are needed to ensure a safer therapeutic approach.

Background: Linezolid has been found to have considerable interindividual variability, especially in critically ill patients, which can lead to suboptimal plasma concentration. To overcome this shortcoming, several solutions have been proposed. These include using loading dose, higher maintenance doses, and dose stratification according to the patient’s particularities, therapeutic drug monitoring, and drug administration via continuous infusion (CI) instead of intermittent infusion (II). In the present study, we aim to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of linezolid after administration as II versus CI to critically ill patients. Methods: In a prospective study conducted in an intensive care unit, we compared the same two daily doses of linezolid administered via II versus CI. The serum concentration was measured, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) indices for efficacy chosen were area under the concentration–time curve at steady state divided by the minimum inhibitory concentration over 80 (AUC24–48/MIC > 80). Results: Greater serum concentration variability was observed in the II group than in the CI group. The %T > MIC > 80% was achieved for MICs of 1 and 2 µg/mL 100% of the time, whereas for the II group, this was 93% and 73%, respectively. AUC24–48/MIC > 80 was reached in 100% of cases in the CI group compared with 87% in the II group for a MIC of 1 µg/mL. Conclusions: The two infusion methods may be used comparably, but utilizing CI as an alternative to II may have potential benefits, including avoiding periods of suboptimal concentrations, which may enhance safety profiles and clinical outcomes. Considering the relatively few studies performed on linezolid to date, which are increasing in number, the results of the present study may be of interest.

Introduction: Linezolid is a reserve antibiotic used to treat infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria with resistance genes. In critically ill patients, high intra- and interindividual variability has been observed, prompting the search for alternative methods to reduce this variability and achieve the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic indices necessary for a favorable efficacy–safety balance. Aim of the study: We wished to compare the safety and effectiveness of a continuous infusion (CI) versus an intermittent infusion (II) of linezolid in patients requiring intensive care. Materials and Methods: This study, registered under the number NCT05801484), was a prospective, open-label, single-center, two-arm study. Data on hematologic safety and effectiveness were collected and compared between patients receiving CI and II, respectively, at the same daily dose of linezolid (1200 mg). Results: Twenty-nine patients from the intensive care unit were included, divided into two groups. No statistically significant difference was found in 30-day mortality between the groups, nor in the likelihood of post-treatment culture negativity. However, a significantly greater reduction in C-reactive protein levels was observed in the CI group compared to the II group. Regarding safety, at CrCl < 60 mL/min, the decrease in platelets was statistically significant in group II but not in group CI. Additionally, at the 30-day follow-up, recovery from thrombocytopenia was better in the CI group. Conclusions: Continuous infusion of linezolid proved to be non-inferior to intermittent infusion at the same daily dose in terms of effectiveness. Furthermore, a lower risk of adverse reactions was identified with continuous infusion.

Prostate cancer (PC) represents the second most common diagnosed cancer in men. The burden of diagnosis and long-term treatment may frequently cause psychiatric disorders in patients, particularly depression. The most common PC treatment option is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which may be associated with taxane chemotherapy. In patients with both PC and psychiatric disorders, polypharmacy is frequently present, which increases the risk of drug–drug interactions (DDIs) and drug-related adverse effects. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a pharmacoepidemiologic study of the concomitant administration of PC drugs and psychotropics using three drug interaction databases (Lexicomp^®, drugs.com^®, and Medscape^®). This study assayed 4320 drug–drug combinations (DDCs) and identified 814 DDIs, out of which 405 (49.63%) were pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions and 411 (50.37%) were pharmacodynamic (PD) interactions. The most common PK interactions were based on CYP3A4 induction (n = 275, 67.90%), while the most common PD interactions were based on additive torsadogenicity (n = 391, 95.13%). Proposed measures for managing the identified DDIs included dose adjustments, drug substitutions, supplementary agents, parameters monitoring, or simply the avoidance of a given DDC. A significant heterogenicity was observed between the selected drug interaction databases, which can be mitigated by cross-referencing multiple databases in clinical practice.