Background. Molnupiravir (MOL) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NIR) were recently approved for the early treatment of COVID-19, but real-life data on tolerability, safety, and adverse events (AEs) are still scarce. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all patients who were prescribed MOL and NIR at the Infectious Diseases Unit of Padua University Hospital, between January and May 2022. Demographic, clinical, and safety variables were recorded. Results. We included 909 patients, 48.3% males and 95.2% vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. The median age was 73 (IQR: 62–82) years. MOL and NIR were prescribed in 407 (44.8%) and 502 (55.2%) patients, respectively. Overall, 124/909 (13.6%) patients experienced any AEs following antivirals intake: 98/124 (79%) patients reporting adverse events presented grade 1 AEs, 23/124 (18.5%) grade 2 AEs and 3 (2.5%) grade 3 AEs. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 4.8% of patients. AEs were significantly higher in women, in patients treated with NIR compared to MOL and in people who were not vaccinated. Conclusions. In our real-life setting, AEs were higher than those reported by clinical trials, and were particularly associated with NIR use and with not being vaccinated. Further analyses are needed to better assess safety of oral antivirals and to define which patient’s profile may benefit most from MOL and NIR.

Background. A large increase in multi-drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, especially carbapenem-resistant strains, occurred during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, posing important challenges in its treatment. Cefiderocol appeared to be a good option for the treatment of Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CR-Ab), but to date, the guidelines and evidence available are conflicting. Methods. We retrospectively included a group of patients with CR-Ab infections (treated with colistin- or cefiderocol-based regimens) at Padua University Hospital (August 2020–July 2022) and assessed predictors of 30-day mortality, and differences in microbiological and clinical treatment. To evaluate the difference in outcomes, accounting for the imbalance in antibiotic treatment allocation, a propensity score weighting (PSW) approach was adopted. Results. We included 111 patients, 68% males, with a median age of 69 years (IQR: 59–78). The median duration of antibiotic treatment was 13 days (IQR:11–16). In total, 60 (54.1%) and 51 (45.9%) patients received cefiderocol- and colistin-based therapy, respectively. Notably, 53 (47.7%) patients had bloodstream infections, while 58 (52.3%) had pneumonia. Colistin was combined in 96.1%, 80.4%, and 5.8% of cases with tigecycline, meropenem, and fosfomycin, respectively. Cefiderocol was combined in 13.3%, 30%, and 18.3% of cases with fosfomycin, tigecycline, and meropenem, respectively. At the baseline, the two treatment groups significantly differed in age (patients treated with colistin were significantly older), the prevalence of diabetes and obesity (more frequent in the group treated with colistin), length of stay (longer in the group receiving cefiderocol), and type of infection (BSI were more frequent in the group receiving cefiderocol). The proportion of patients who developed acute kidney injury was significantly higher in the colistin group. By using PSW, no statistically significant differences emerged for mortality or clinical and microbiological cure between the two groups. No independent predictors were detected for hospital mortality or clinical cure, while for the length of stay, the only selected predictor was age, with a non-linear effect (p-value 0.025 for non-linearity) on the prolongation of hospital stay of 0.25 days (95% CI 0.10–0.39) at increasing ages (calculated over the IQR). Conclusions. Cefiderocol treatment did not differ in terms of main outcomes and safety profile from colistin-based regimens. More prospective studies with a larger number of patients are required to confirm our results.

Some anti-cancer treatments (e. g., immunotherapies) determine, on the long term, a durable survival in a small percentage of treated patients; in graphical terms, long-term survivors typically give rise to a plateau in the right tail of the survival curve. In analysing these datasets, medians are unable to recognize the presence of this plateau. To account for long-term survivors, both value-frameworks of ASCO and ESMO have incorporated post-hoc corrections that upgrade the framework scores when a survival plateau is present. However, the empiric nature of these post-hoc corrections is self-evident. To capture the presence of a survival plateau by quantitative methods, two approaches have thus far been proposed: the milestone method and the area-under-the-curve (AUC) method. The first approach identifies a long-term time-point in the follow-up (“milestone”) at which survival percentages are extracted. The second approach, which is based on the measurement of AUC of survival curves, essentially is the rearrangement of previous methods determining mean lifetime survival; similarly to the milestone method, the application of AUC can be “restricted” to a pre-specified time-point of the follow-up. This Mini-Review examines the literature published on this topic. The main characteristics of these two methods are highlighted along with their advantages and disadvantages. The conclusion is that both the milestone method and the AUC method are able to capture the presence of a survival plateau.

In the area of evidence-based medicine, the IPDfromKM-Shiny method is an innovative method of survival analysis, midway between artificial intelligence and advanced statistics. Its main characteristic is that an original software investigates the Kaplan-Meier graphs of trials so that individual-patient data are reconstructed. These reconstructed patients represent a new form of original clinical material. The typical objective of investigations based on this method is to analyze the available evidence, especially in oncology, to perform indirect comparisons, and determine the place in therapy of individual agents. This review examined the most recent applications of the IPDfromKM-Shiny method, in which a new web-based software—published in 2021—was used. Reported here are 14 analyses, mostly focused on oncological treatments. Indirect comparisons were based on overall survival or progression free survival. Each of these analyses provided original information to compare treatments with one another and select the most appropriate depending on patient characteristics. These analyses can also be useful to assess equivalence from a regulatory viewpoint. All investigations stressed the importance of heterogeneity to better interpret the evidence generated by IPDfromKM-Shiny investigations. In conclusion, these investigations showed that the reconstruction of individual patient data through this online tool is a promising new method for analyzing trials based on survival endpoints. This new approach deserves further investigation, particularly in the area of indirect comparisons.

Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococci (MR-CoNS), and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) are increasing worldwide and represent a threat for the limited treatment options in pediatric patients and neonates compared to adults. Recommendations in pediatrics are mainly extrapolated from adults’ studies. Methods: A literature search for the treatment of these pathogens in children (<18 years old) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library. Studies reporting data on single-patient-level outcomes related to a specific antibiotic treatment for multidrug resistant (MDR) Gram-positive bacterial infection in children were included. Studies reporting data from adults and children were included if single-pediatric-level information could be identified (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022383867). Results: The search identified 11,740 studies (since January 2000), of which 48 fulfilled both the inclusion and the exclusion criteria and were included in the analysis: 29 for MRSA, 20 for VRE, and seven for MR-CoNS. Most studies were retrospective studies. Vancomycin was mainly used as a comparator, while linezolid and daptomycin were the most studied antimicrobials showing good efficacy. Conclusions: Linezolid showed a safety and efficacy profile in a neonatal setting; daptomycin is increasingly used for MRSA, but the evidence is scarce for VRE.