Experience in real clinical practice with ceftazidime/avibactam is limited, and there are even fewer data on infections due to OXA-48-producing Enterobacteriaceae. We designed an observational study of a prospectively collected cohort of adult patients receiving ceftazidime/avibactam in our centre. Only the first treatment course of each patient was analysed. Efficacy and safety were evaluated as 14 and 30 day mortality, recurrence rate at 90 days, resistance development and occurrence of adverse effects. Fifty-seven patients were treated with ceftazidime/avibactam. The median age was 64 years (range 26-86), 77% were male and the median Charlson index was 3. The most frequent sources of infection were intra-abdominal (28%), followed by respiratory (26%) and urinary (25%). Thirty-one (54%) patients had a severe infection (defined as presence of sepsis or septic shock). Most patients received ceftazidime/avibactam as monotherapy (81%) and the median duration of treatment was 13 days. Mortality at 14 days was 14%. In multivariate analysis, the only mortality risk factor was INCREMENT-CPE score >7 (HR 11.7, 95% CI 4.2-20.6). There was no association between mortality and monotherapy with ceftazidime/avibactam. The recurrence rate at 90 days was 10%. Ceftazidime/avibactam resistance was not detected in any case and only two patients developed adverse events related to treatment. Ceftazidime/avibactam shows promising results, even in monotherapy, for the treatment of patients with severe infections due to OXA-48-producing Enterobacteriaceae and limited therapeutic options. The emergence of resistance to ceftazidime/avibactam was not observed.

The detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in the saliva of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) has made this biological fluid relevant in terms of the diagnosis and transmission of the infection (To et al, 2020a; Azzi et al, 2020a). As a result, the dental clinic is considered an environment of risk for dental healthcare personnel and their patients, particularly due to the potential transmission of the virus through droplets and aerosols (Peng et al, 2020).

Objective: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) is a validated instrument for assessing organ damage in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Trained physicians must complete it, thus limiting utility where this is impossible.Methods: We developed and pilot tested a self‐assessed organ damage instrument, the Lupus Damage Index Questionnaire (LDIQ), in 37 SLE subjects and 7 physicians. After refinement, 569 English‐speaking SLE subjects and 14 rheumatologists from 11 international SLE clinics participated in validation. Subjects and physicians completed the instruments separately. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, Spearman's correlations, and agreement using the SDI as the gold standard. Six hundred five SLE participants in the community‐based National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases (NDB) study completed the LDIQ and we assessed correlations with outcome and disability measures.Results: The mean LDIQ score was 3.3 (range 0–16) and the mean SDI score was 1.5 (range 0–9). The LDIQ had a moderately high correlation with the SDI (Spearman's r = 0.50, P < 0.001). Specificities of individual LDIQ items were >80%, except for neuropathy. Sensitivities were variable and lowest for damage, with 85% for all but neuropathy, reduced renal function, deforming arthritis, and alopecia. In the NDB, the LDIQ correlated well with the comorbidity index (r = 0.45), the Short Form 36 physical component scale (r = 0.43), the Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (r = 0.40), disability (r = 0.37), and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Activity Questionnaire score (r = 0.37).Conclusion: The metric properties of the LDIQ are good compared with the SDI. It has construct validity and correlations with health assessments similar to the SDI. The LDIQ should allow expansion of SLE research. Its ultimate value will be determined in longitudinal studies.