Background: Ceftobiprole is a fifth-generation cephalosporin that has been approved in Europe solely for the treatment of community-acquired and nosocomial pneumonia. The objective was to analyze the use of ceftobiprole medocaril (Cefto-M) in Spanish clinical practice in patients with infections in hospital or outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). Methods: This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients treated from 1 September 2021 to 31 December 2022. Results: A total of 249 individuals were enrolled, aged 66.6 ± 15.4 years, of whom 59.4% were male with a Charlson index of four (IQR 2–6), 13.7% had COVID-19, and 4.8% were in an intensive care unit (ICU). The most frequent type of infection was respiratory (55.8%), followed by skin and soft tissue infection (21.7%). Cefto-M was administered to 67.9% of the patients as an empirical treatment, in which was administered as monotherapy for 7 days (5–10) in 53.8% of cases. The infection-related mortality was 11.2%. The highest mortality rates were identified for ventilator-associated pneumonia (40%) and infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococus aureus (20.8%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (16.1%). The mortality-related factors were age (OR: 1.1, 95%CI (1.04–1.16)), ICU admission (OR: 42.02, 95%CI (4.49–393.4)), and sepsis/septic shock (OR: 2.94, 95%CI (1.01–8.54)). Conclusions: In real life, Cefto-M is a safe antibiotic, comprising only half of prescriptions for respiratory infections, that is mainly administered as rescue therapy in pluripathological patients with severe infectious diseases.

Background: Ceftobiprole is a fifth-generation cephalosporin that has been approved in Europe solely for the treatment of community-acquired and nosocomial pneumonia. The objective was to analyze the use of ceftobiprole medocaril (Cefto-M) in Spanish clinical practice in patients with infection in hospital or outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). Methods: This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients treated from September 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. Results: 249 individuals were enrolled, aged 66.6±15.4 years, 59.4% male, with Charlson index of 4 (IQR 2-6); 13.7% had COVID-19, and 4.8% were in intensive care unit (ICU). The most frequent type of infection was respiratory (55.8%), followed by skin and soft tissue infection (21.7%). Cefto-M was administered to 67.9% as empirical treatment, being in monotherapy for 7 days (5-10) in 53.8% of cases. The infection-related mortality was 11.2%.The highest mortality rates were for ventilator-associated pneumonia [40%], and infections due to methicillin-resistant S. aureus (20.8%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (16.1%). Mortality-related factors were age (OR: 1.1, 95%CI [1.04-1.16]), ICU admission (OR:42.02, 95%CI[4.49-393.4]), and sepsis/septic shock (OR:2.94, 95%CI [1.01-8.54]).Conclusions: In real life, Cefto-M is a safe antibiotic, with only half of prescriptions in respiratory infections, mainly administered as rescue therapy in pluripathological patients with severe infectious diseases.

Background: Data on antibiotic treatment for diabetic foot osteomyelitis are limited. This study aims to describe the real-world effectiveness and safety of dalbavancin in treating deep diabetic foot infections. Methods: A retrospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted in nine Spanish hospitals and one Irish hospital. Patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis treated with dalbavancin were included. Data on demographics, clinical characteristics, microbiology, antibiotic regimens, adverse events, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: Among 136 patients, 76% were male, with a mean age of 69 ± 12 years. Renal insufficiency was observed in 32%, and 6% required renal replacement therapy. Based on the McCabe scale, 70% of patients had a rapidly or ultimately fatal disease. Polypharmacy was noted in 83%, and 60% of infections were moderate. Dalbavancin was primarily used as second-line therapy (92%). The cure rate was 80.9% (95% CI: 73.5–86.6%), achieved after a median of two doses. Patients receiving dalbavancin as first-line therapy had a cure rate of 86%, comparable to 80% in second-line therapy, with no significant differences. Surgical interventions were required in 72% of cases, with minor amputations performed in 40% of patients. Polymicrobial infections were common (55%), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was identified in 26% of cases. Adverse events occurred in 5% of patients. Chronic kidney disease was the sole independent risk factor for therapeutic failure (IRR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64–1.00, p = 0.045). Conclusions: Dalbavancin is effective and safe for treating diabetic foot osteomyelitis, including in complex patients with resistant microorganisms.