Cargando…

Cefepime extended infusion versus intermittent infusion: Clinical and cost evaluation

BACKGROUND: Extended infusion cefepime (1 gram every 6 hours administered over 3 hours) achieves pharmacodynamic efficacy against bacteria with a MIC of ≤8 mg/L in Monte Carlo simulations. This regimen has not been evaluated in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: Compare clinical and economic outcomes for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khole, Aalok V., Dionne, Emily, Zitek-Morrison, Emily, Campion, Maureen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10369431/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37502254
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.179
_version_ 1785077759361417216
author Khole, Aalok V.
Dionne, Emily
Zitek-Morrison, Emily
Campion, Maureen
author_facet Khole, Aalok V.
Dionne, Emily
Zitek-Morrison, Emily
Campion, Maureen
author_sort Khole, Aalok V.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Extended infusion cefepime (1 gram every 6 hours administered over 3 hours) achieves pharmacodynamic efficacy against bacteria with a MIC of ≤8 mg/L in Monte Carlo simulations. This regimen has not been evaluated in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: Compare clinical and economic outcomes for cefepime by intermittent infusion and by extended infusion in the acute-care setting. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care academic medical center. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults who received cefepime between August 2016 and July 2018 with a diagnosis of sepsis or pneumonia. METHODS: Clinical and economic outcomes were compared for patients who received empiric cefepime via intermittent infusion (30-minute infusion of 2 g every 8 hours) or extended infusion (3-hour infusion of 1 g every 6 hours). Clinical outcomes analyses were carried out using appropriate statistical methods. RESULTS: Overall, 111 patients received intermittent infusion and 93 patients received extended infusion. Approximately half of the included patients had a positive culture for a bacterial pathogen (intermittent infusion 45.9% vs extended infusion 47.3%). Median hospital length of stay (intermittent infusion 6 days vs extended infusion 6 days; P = .67) and 90-day readmission rates (intermittent infusion 61.3% vs extended infusion 67.7%; P = .34) did not differ between the groups. Mortality was infrequent in both groups (intermittent infusion 2.9% vs extended infusion 1.5%; P = .45). Cefepime cost per patient was lower with cefepime by extended infusion: average total daily cost $86.06 for intermittent infusion versus $43.39 for extended infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime via extended infusion (4 grams/day) did not differ in clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusion (6 grams/day) but reduced drug expenditure. Prospective, multicenter, high-quality studies should be conducted to evaluate a mortality difference between these regimens.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10369431
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103694312023-07-27 Cefepime extended infusion versus intermittent infusion: Clinical and cost evaluation Khole, Aalok V. Dionne, Emily Zitek-Morrison, Emily Campion, Maureen Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol Original Article BACKGROUND: Extended infusion cefepime (1 gram every 6 hours administered over 3 hours) achieves pharmacodynamic efficacy against bacteria with a MIC of ≤8 mg/L in Monte Carlo simulations. This regimen has not been evaluated in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: Compare clinical and economic outcomes for cefepime by intermittent infusion and by extended infusion in the acute-care setting. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care academic medical center. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults who received cefepime between August 2016 and July 2018 with a diagnosis of sepsis or pneumonia. METHODS: Clinical and economic outcomes were compared for patients who received empiric cefepime via intermittent infusion (30-minute infusion of 2 g every 8 hours) or extended infusion (3-hour infusion of 1 g every 6 hours). Clinical outcomes analyses were carried out using appropriate statistical methods. RESULTS: Overall, 111 patients received intermittent infusion and 93 patients received extended infusion. Approximately half of the included patients had a positive culture for a bacterial pathogen (intermittent infusion 45.9% vs extended infusion 47.3%). Median hospital length of stay (intermittent infusion 6 days vs extended infusion 6 days; P = .67) and 90-day readmission rates (intermittent infusion 61.3% vs extended infusion 67.7%; P = .34) did not differ between the groups. Mortality was infrequent in both groups (intermittent infusion 2.9% vs extended infusion 1.5%; P = .45). Cefepime cost per patient was lower with cefepime by extended infusion: average total daily cost $86.06 for intermittent infusion versus $43.39 for extended infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime via extended infusion (4 grams/day) did not differ in clinical outcomes compared to intermittent infusion (6 grams/day) but reduced drug expenditure. Prospective, multicenter, high-quality studies should be conducted to evaluate a mortality difference between these regimens. Cambridge University Press 2023-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10369431/ /pubmed/37502254 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.179 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Khole, Aalok V.
Dionne, Emily
Zitek-Morrison, Emily
Campion, Maureen
Cefepime extended infusion versus intermittent infusion: Clinical and cost evaluation
title Cefepime extended infusion versus intermittent infusion: Clinical and cost evaluation
title_full Cefepime extended infusion versus intermittent infusion: Clinical and cost evaluation
title_fullStr Cefepime extended infusion versus intermittent infusion: Clinical and cost evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Cefepime extended infusion versus intermittent infusion: Clinical and cost evaluation
title_short Cefepime extended infusion versus intermittent infusion: Clinical and cost evaluation
title_sort cefepime extended infusion versus intermittent infusion: clinical and cost evaluation
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10369431/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37502254
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.179
work_keys_str_mv AT kholeaalokv cefepimeextendedinfusionversusintermittentinfusionclinicalandcostevaluation
AT dionneemily cefepimeextendedinfusionversusintermittentinfusionclinicalandcostevaluation
AT zitekmorrisonemily cefepimeextendedinfusionversusintermittentinfusionclinicalandcostevaluation
AT campionmaureen cefepimeextendedinfusionversusintermittentinfusionclinicalandcostevaluation