Cargando…
Treatment of Piperacillin-Tazobactam–Nonsusceptible/Ceftriaxone-Susceptible Infections With Carbapenem Versus Carbapenem-Sparing Antimicrobials
BACKGROUND: Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae with a piperacillin-tazobactam–nonsusceptible/ceftriaxone-susceptible (TZP-NS/CRO-S) phenotype have been increasingly identified, with limited available literature evaluating treatment strategies. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of noncr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10249260/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37305841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad262 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae with a piperacillin-tazobactam–nonsusceptible/ceftriaxone-susceptible (TZP-NS/CRO-S) phenotype have been increasingly identified, with limited available literature evaluating treatment strategies. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of noncritically ill adults hospitalized between 2013 and 2021 and treated at least 48 hours for TZP-NS/CRO-S E coli or K pneumoniae infections. The primary composite endpoint included escalation to intensive care unit, infection- or treatment-related readmission, mortality, and infection recurrence. Outcomes were compared between groups who received carbapenem (CG) versus carbapenem-sparing agents (CSG) as targeted gram-negative therapy. RESULTS: Of 1062 patients screened, 200 were included (CG, n = 51; CSG, n = 149). Baseline characteristics, including Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; median [interquartile range], 6 [3–9] vs 6 [4–9]; P = .704), were similar between groups, except for more immunocompromised CG patients (29% vs 11%, P = .001). The most common infection sources were urinary (31% vs 57%, P = .002) and bloodstream (18% vs 17%, P = .887). Eighty-eight percent of the CG received meropenem, while 58% of the CSG received ceftriaxone as targeted therapy. There was no statistical difference in the primary endpoint between overall groups (27% vs 17%, P = .123), nor when stratified by infection source. More patients in the CSG switched to oral therapy (15 [29%] vs 100 [67%], P < .001). In multivariate analysis, CCI was an independent predictor of the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.199 [95% confidence interval, 1.074–1.340]; P = .001), while treatment with carbapenem-sparing therapy was not. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not find improved clinical outcomes with targeted carbapenem therapy for TZP-NS/CRO-S infections. Carbapenem-sparing agents may be considered to spare carbapenems in noncritically ill patients similar to those included in our cohort. |
---|