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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |