Cargando…

2759. Cefiderocol vs Best Available Therapy for the Treatment of Carbapenem- Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii

BACKGROUND: Cefiderocol has been evaluated as a treatment of carbapenem-resistant gram negative infections. However robust data for the optimal approach to treat carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) is lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cefiderocol vs b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Daisey, Gabrielle N, Vyas, Nikunj M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10678626/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.2370
_version_ 1785150407111081984
author Daisey, Gabrielle N
Vyas, Nikunj M
author_facet Daisey, Gabrielle N
Vyas, Nikunj M
author_sort Daisey, Gabrielle N
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cefiderocol has been evaluated as a treatment of carbapenem-resistant gram negative infections. However robust data for the optimal approach to treat carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) is lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cefiderocol vs best available therapy (BAT) for the treatment CRAB infections. METHODS: This IRB-approved retrospective observational review was conducted at a three-hospital community health system between June, 2020 to February, 2021. Hospitalized patients were included if they were ≥18 years old and received ≥24 hours of targeted antibiotics for CRAB. Patients were excluded if they were considered to be colonized or were pregnant. Patients in the cefiderocol group were matched with patients in BAT group based on age and source of infection in a 1:3 ratio. The primary endpoint of this study was to assess all-cause inpatient mortality (ACIM) at the end of therapy. The secondary endpoint included clinical cure (CC) at the end of therapy. A subgroup analysis was performed for patients treated with cefiderocol monotherapy, cefiderocol combination therapy, and combination BAT to determine differences in ACIM and CC. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included in the primary analysis; 15 receiving cefiderocol and 45 receiving BAT. There was no difference in patient age, race, and diagnosis between both groups. Patients in the BAT group had a shorter length of stay vs cefiderocol group (14 vs 19 days. P=0.05). Ampicillin/sulbactam (86.7% vs 57.8%, P=0.06) and minocycline (86.7% vs 22.2%, P=0.0001) non-susceptible CRAB isolates were more common in the cefiderocol group vs BAT group (as seen in Figure 1). No differences were seen in ACIM (27% vs 18%, P=0.47) and CC (53% vs 60%, P=1.0) between both groups. The subgroup analysis revealed cefiderocol combination therapy had a decreased number of patients with ACIM and had favorable CC outcomes compared to cefiderocol monotherapy and combination BAT (as seen in Figure 2). Comparison of Susceptibility Patterns [Figure: see text] All Cause Inpatient Mortality and Clinical Cure in Subgroup Analysis of Monotherapy vs Combination Therapy [Figure: see text] CONCLUSION: Cefiderocol seems to be a viable option for treatment of CRAB infections. No differences were seen in ACIM and CC between cefiderocol and BAT. Cefiderocol combination therapy seems to be a preferred therapeutic option for CRAB infections. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10678626
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106786262023-11-27 2759. Cefiderocol vs Best Available Therapy for the Treatment of Carbapenem- Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Daisey, Gabrielle N Vyas, Nikunj M Open Forum Infect Dis Abstract BACKGROUND: Cefiderocol has been evaluated as a treatment of carbapenem-resistant gram negative infections. However robust data for the optimal approach to treat carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) is lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cefiderocol vs best available therapy (BAT) for the treatment CRAB infections. METHODS: This IRB-approved retrospective observational review was conducted at a three-hospital community health system between June, 2020 to February, 2021. Hospitalized patients were included if they were ≥18 years old and received ≥24 hours of targeted antibiotics for CRAB. Patients were excluded if they were considered to be colonized or were pregnant. Patients in the cefiderocol group were matched with patients in BAT group based on age and source of infection in a 1:3 ratio. The primary endpoint of this study was to assess all-cause inpatient mortality (ACIM) at the end of therapy. The secondary endpoint included clinical cure (CC) at the end of therapy. A subgroup analysis was performed for patients treated with cefiderocol monotherapy, cefiderocol combination therapy, and combination BAT to determine differences in ACIM and CC. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included in the primary analysis; 15 receiving cefiderocol and 45 receiving BAT. There was no difference in patient age, race, and diagnosis between both groups. Patients in the BAT group had a shorter length of stay vs cefiderocol group (14 vs 19 days. P=0.05). Ampicillin/sulbactam (86.7% vs 57.8%, P=0.06) and minocycline (86.7% vs 22.2%, P=0.0001) non-susceptible CRAB isolates were more common in the cefiderocol group vs BAT group (as seen in Figure 1). No differences were seen in ACIM (27% vs 18%, P=0.47) and CC (53% vs 60%, P=1.0) between both groups. The subgroup analysis revealed cefiderocol combination therapy had a decreased number of patients with ACIM and had favorable CC outcomes compared to cefiderocol monotherapy and combination BAT (as seen in Figure 2). Comparison of Susceptibility Patterns [Figure: see text] All Cause Inpatient Mortality and Clinical Cure in Subgroup Analysis of Monotherapy vs Combination Therapy [Figure: see text] CONCLUSION: Cefiderocol seems to be a viable option for treatment of CRAB infections. No differences were seen in ACIM and CC between cefiderocol and BAT. Cefiderocol combination therapy seems to be a preferred therapeutic option for CRAB infections. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures Oxford University Press 2023-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10678626/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.2370 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Abstract
Daisey, Gabrielle N
Vyas, Nikunj M
2759. Cefiderocol vs Best Available Therapy for the Treatment of Carbapenem- Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii
title 2759. Cefiderocol vs Best Available Therapy for the Treatment of Carbapenem- Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii
title_full 2759. Cefiderocol vs Best Available Therapy for the Treatment of Carbapenem- Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii
title_fullStr 2759. Cefiderocol vs Best Available Therapy for the Treatment of Carbapenem- Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii
title_full_unstemmed 2759. Cefiderocol vs Best Available Therapy for the Treatment of Carbapenem- Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii
title_short 2759. Cefiderocol vs Best Available Therapy for the Treatment of Carbapenem- Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii
title_sort 2759. cefiderocol vs best available therapy for the treatment of carbapenem- resistant acinetobacter baumannii
topic Abstract
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10678626/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad500.2370
work_keys_str_mv AT daiseygabriellen 2759cefiderocolvsbestavailabletherapyforthetreatmentofcarbapenemresistantacinetobacterbaumannii
AT vyasnikunjm 2759cefiderocolvsbestavailabletherapyforthetreatmentofcarbapenemresistantacinetobacterbaumannii