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 |
_version_ | 1785055522518466560 |
---|---|
author | Cao, John Dubrovskaya, Yanina Siegfried, Justin Decano, Arnold Mazo, Dana Hochman, Sarah Zacharioudakis, Ioannis M So, Jonathan Solomon, Sadie Papadopoulos, John Marsh, Kassandra |
author_facet | Cao, John Dubrovskaya, Yanina Siegfried, Justin Decano, Arnold Mazo, Dana Hochman, Sarah Zacharioudakis, Ioannis M So, Jonathan Solomon, Sadie Papadopoulos, John Marsh, Kassandra |
author_sort | Cao, John |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10249260 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102492602023-06-09 Treatment of Piperacillin-Tazobactam–Nonsusceptible/Ceftriaxone-Susceptible Infections With Carbapenem Versus Carbapenem-Sparing Antimicrobials Cao, John Dubrovskaya, Yanina Siegfried, Justin Decano, Arnold Mazo, Dana Hochman, Sarah Zacharioudakis, Ioannis M So, Jonathan Solomon, Sadie Papadopoulos, John Marsh, Kassandra Open Forum Infect Dis Major Article 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. Oxford University Press 2023-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10249260/ /pubmed/37305841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad262 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Major Article Cao, John Dubrovskaya, Yanina Siegfried, Justin Decano, Arnold Mazo, Dana Hochman, Sarah Zacharioudakis, Ioannis M So, Jonathan Solomon, Sadie Papadopoulos, John Marsh, Kassandra Treatment of Piperacillin-Tazobactam–Nonsusceptible/Ceftriaxone-Susceptible Infections With Carbapenem Versus Carbapenem-Sparing Antimicrobials |
title | Treatment of Piperacillin-Tazobactam–Nonsusceptible/Ceftriaxone-Susceptible Infections With Carbapenem Versus Carbapenem-Sparing Antimicrobials |
title_full | Treatment of Piperacillin-Tazobactam–Nonsusceptible/Ceftriaxone-Susceptible Infections With Carbapenem Versus Carbapenem-Sparing Antimicrobials |
title_fullStr | Treatment of Piperacillin-Tazobactam–Nonsusceptible/Ceftriaxone-Susceptible Infections With Carbapenem Versus Carbapenem-Sparing Antimicrobials |
title_full_unstemmed | Treatment of Piperacillin-Tazobactam–Nonsusceptible/Ceftriaxone-Susceptible Infections With Carbapenem Versus Carbapenem-Sparing Antimicrobials |
title_short | Treatment of Piperacillin-Tazobactam–Nonsusceptible/Ceftriaxone-Susceptible Infections With Carbapenem Versus Carbapenem-Sparing Antimicrobials |
title_sort | treatment of piperacillin-tazobactam–nonsusceptible/ceftriaxone-susceptible infections with carbapenem versus carbapenem-sparing antimicrobials |
topic | Major Article |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT caojohn treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials AT dubrovskayayanina treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials AT siegfriedjustin treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials AT decanoarnold treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials AT mazodana treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials AT hochmansarah treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials AT zacharioudakisioannism treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials AT sojonathan treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials AT solomonsadie treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials AT papadopoulosjohn treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials AT marshkassandra treatmentofpiperacillintazobactamnonsusceptibleceftriaxonesusceptibleinfectionswithcarbapenemversuscarbapenemsparingantimicrobials |