The COVID-19 pandemic has had a large and varying impact on primary care. This paper studies changes in the tasks of general practitioners (GPs) and associated staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from the PRICOV-19 study of 5093 GPs in 38 countries were used. We constructed a scale for task changes and performed multilevel analyses. The scale was reliable at both GP and country level. Clustering of task changes at country level was considerable (25%). During the pandemic, staff members were more involved in giving information and recommendations to patients contacting the practice by phone, and they were more involved in triage. GPs took on additional responsibilities and were more involved in reaching out to patients. Problems due to staff absence, when dealt with internally, were related to more task changes. Task changes were larger in practices employing a wider range of professional groups. Whilst GPs were happy with the task changes in practices with more changes, they also felt the need for further training. A higher-than-average proportion of elderly people and people with a chronic condition in the practice were related to task changes. The number of infections in a country during the first wave of the pandemic was related to task changes. Other characteristics at country level were not associated with task changes. Future research on the sustainability of task changes after the pandemic is needed.

Background/Objectives: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) frequently coexist in older adults. Sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are recommended for renal and heart protection, yet their use in routine care remains inconsistent. We aimed to investigate differences in SGLT2i prescribing between regional and university hospital settings and assess whether such disparities persist after accounting for patient characteristics. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, patients were stratified by follow-up site (regional vs. university hospital). The primary outcome was SGLT2i use. Logistic regression models were adjusted for strong determinants of prescribing decisions, including age, sex, hypertension, dyslipidemia, heart failure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. We tested the robustness of the results using additional analyses, including exclusion of frail patients and adjustment with propensity score methods, such as matching and inverse probability weighting (IPTW). Results: The study included 135 patients, of whom 80 were followed at the regional hospital and 55 at the university hospital. SGLT2i use was significantly lower in the regional setting (27.5% vs. 63.6%, p < 0.001). In adjusted models, university follow-up remained strongly associated with SGLT2i prescription [odds ratio 3.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61–8.03, p = 0.0018]. IPTW demonstrated 4.40-fold higher odds of SGLT2i use in the university hospital setting (95% CI 2.07–9.36, p < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings indicate that the lower use of SGLT2i among older adults with T2D and CKD followed in regional hospitals may reflect patterns consistent with clinical inertia, underscoring the importance of efforts to promote equitable and guideline-aligned prescribing practices across levels of care.

Background/Objectives: Current guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) strongly recommend the use of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) to alleviate cardiorenal risk. However, the implementation of this guidance in daily practice remains limited. In a real-world setting, we evaluated the frequency of SGLT2i use in elderly people with T2D and CKD and compared patient profiles between SGLT2i users and non-users. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of individuals over 65 years of age followed in outpatient internal medicine clinics in Greece. Demographic and laboratory parameters, comorbidity profiles, and medication use were recorded and compared between the SGLT2i and non-SGLT2i groups. Results: The analysis included 135 patients with T2D and CKD, of whom the majority (57.8%) did not receive SGLT2i treatment. The patients in the SGLT2i group were younger (p = 0.006), had higher creatinine (p = 0.001) and hemoglobin (p = 0.001) values, and lower levels of uric acid (p = 0.025) than the participants not treated with SGLT2is. Heart failure rates were similar between the groups (p = 0.252). There was no difference in the use of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors (p = 0.210); in contrast, treatment with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists was more frequent in the group receiving SGLT2is compared to the group not treated with gliflozins (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Real-world data confirm the benefits of SGLT2i treatment for elderly people with T2D and CKD. However, our findings indicate that the use of gliflozins in this population of patients remains suboptimal, highlighting the need for greater vigilance among prescribers to align with existing guidelines.

Acinetobacter baumannii has been characterized by CDC, WHO and most National Healthcare Systems worldwide as a critical nosocomial pathogen, and classified as an ESKAPE (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp.) pathogen. Mortality of invasive infections due to A. baumannii exceeds 40%. To highlight its impact on public health, ECDC has organized a special project on national lab co-ordination to accurately detect and report carbapenem-resistant strains, to identify epidemiological factors for infection (or colonization) with carbapenem-resistant A. baumanii at clonal and sub-genomic level. This review aims to describe the history, epidemiology, and evolution of resistance of A. baumannii, and stress the caveats associated with the management of systemic infections. Available active antimicrobials and drugs in the pipeline are listed, and available clinical evidence on their pharmacokinetics and efficacy in various types of infections are described. Clinician’s choice of treatment (drug, and monotherapy vs. combination treatment) depends on the patients’ profile, site of infection and antimicrobial resistance profile. Emphasis is laid on specific patient subpopulations, whose management is discussed.