Real-World Dalbavancin Use for Serious Gram-Positive Infections: Comparing Outcomes Between People Who Use and Do Not Use Drugs

Sarah Zambrano,Molly L Paras,Joji Suzuki,Jeffrey C Pearson,Brandon Dionne,Harry Schrager,Jason Mallada,Veronica Szpak,Katie Fairbank-Haynes,Marlene Kalter,Sara Prostko,Daniel A Solomon
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofae186
2024-03-28
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Abstract:Abstract Background Dalbavancin has been used off-label to treat invasive bacterial infections in vulnerable populations like people who use drugs (PWUD) because of its broad gram-positive coverage and unique pharmacological properties. This retrospective, multisite study examined clinical outcomes at 90 days in PWUD versus non-PWUD after secondary treatment with dalbavancin for bacteremia, endocarditis, osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, and epidural abscesses. Methods Patients at 3 teaching hospitals who received dalbavancin for an invasive infection between March 2016 and May 2022 were included. Characteristics of PWUD and non-PWUD, infection highlights, hospital stay and treatment, and outcomes were compared using χ2 for categorical variables, t test for continuous variables, and nonparametric tests where appropriate. Results There were a total of 176 patients; 78 were PWUD and 98 were non-PWUD. PWUD were more likely to have a patient-directed discharge (26.9% vs 3.1%; P < .001) and be lost to follow-up (20.5% vs 7.14%; P < .01). Assuming loss to follow-up did not achieve clinical cure, 73.1% of PWUD and 74.5% of non-PWUD achieved clinical cure at 90 days (P = .08). Conclusions Dalbavancin was an effective treatment option for invasive gram-positive infections in our patient population. Despite higher rates of patient-directed discharge and loss to follow-up, PWUD had similar rates of clinical cure at 90 days compared to non-PWUD.
immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?