Cargando…

278. Comparison of Oral Cephalexin Versus Oral Levofloxacin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Enterobacterales Bacteremia

BACKGROUND: Aerobic gram-negative rods (GNR) are a common cause of bloodstream infections. While the use of oral antibiotics as step-down therapy for GNR bacteremia is generally accepted, there is debate as to which agents are best. Fluoroquinolones have high oral bioavailability but also have conce...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leung, Thomas H, Tang, Carolyn G, Ereshefsky, Benjamin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7778101/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.322
_version_ 1783631059017007104
author Leung, Thomas H
Tang, Carolyn G
Ereshefsky, Benjamin
author_facet Leung, Thomas H
Tang, Carolyn G
Ereshefsky, Benjamin
author_sort Leung, Thomas H
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Aerobic gram-negative rods (GNR) are a common cause of bloodstream infections. While the use of oral antibiotics as step-down therapy for GNR bacteremia is generally accepted, there is debate as to which agents are best. Fluoroquinolones have high oral bioavailability but also have concerns for toxicity, while oral beta-lactams have lower achievable blood concentrations and require more frequent dosing. At Kaweah Delta Medical Center, patients are transitioned from IV antibiotics to oral levofloxacin or cephalexin. The purpose of this study is to determine if these two oral agents are comparable when used as step-down therapy for uncomplicated GNR bacteremia. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients who were admitted from May 2018 - May 2019 with a positive GNR blood culture. The primary objective was to assess treatment failure defined as a composite outcome of readmission due to recurrent bacteremia or mortality within 60-days. Secondary outcomes included subsequent Clostridioides difficile infection, emergence of resistant GNR bacteria, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients met inclusion criteria. The combined median age of both treatment groups was 58.2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46.7–73.5) and greater than 60% of patients were female. Most patients were Hispanic (45.1%) or non-Hispanic white (43.9%). The most common documented source of GNR bacteremia was the urinary tract (74.4%), and the most frequently recovered organism was Escherichia coli (78.0%). Patients were treated with IV antibiotics for a median treatment duration of 4 days (IQR, 4–5) and oral antibiotics for a median treatment duration of 10 days (IQR, 7.3–11) and 9 days (IQR, 7–11) for cephalexin and levofloxacin, respectively. The composite outcome occurred in 2 patients (4.3%) from the cephalexin group and 0 patients from the levofloxacin group (p=0.50). Positive cultures for resistant GNR were found for 3 patients in the cephalexin group. No patients developed subsequent C. difficile infections. [Image: see text] [Image: see text] [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: Patients who received cephalexin or levofloxacin did not have a significant difference in the composite primary outcome. These findings suggest that oral cephalexin is an effective step-down option to treat uncomplicated GNR bacteremia. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7778101
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77781012021-01-07 278. Comparison of Oral Cephalexin Versus Oral Levofloxacin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Enterobacterales Bacteremia Leung, Thomas H Tang, Carolyn G Ereshefsky, Benjamin Open Forum Infect Dis Poster Abstracts BACKGROUND: Aerobic gram-negative rods (GNR) are a common cause of bloodstream infections. While the use of oral antibiotics as step-down therapy for GNR bacteremia is generally accepted, there is debate as to which agents are best. Fluoroquinolones have high oral bioavailability but also have concerns for toxicity, while oral beta-lactams have lower achievable blood concentrations and require more frequent dosing. At Kaweah Delta Medical Center, patients are transitioned from IV antibiotics to oral levofloxacin or cephalexin. The purpose of this study is to determine if these two oral agents are comparable when used as step-down therapy for uncomplicated GNR bacteremia. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients who were admitted from May 2018 - May 2019 with a positive GNR blood culture. The primary objective was to assess treatment failure defined as a composite outcome of readmission due to recurrent bacteremia or mortality within 60-days. Secondary outcomes included subsequent Clostridioides difficile infection, emergence of resistant GNR bacteria, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients met inclusion criteria. The combined median age of both treatment groups was 58.2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46.7–73.5) and greater than 60% of patients were female. Most patients were Hispanic (45.1%) or non-Hispanic white (43.9%). The most common documented source of GNR bacteremia was the urinary tract (74.4%), and the most frequently recovered organism was Escherichia coli (78.0%). Patients were treated with IV antibiotics for a median treatment duration of 4 days (IQR, 4–5) and oral antibiotics for a median treatment duration of 10 days (IQR, 7.3–11) and 9 days (IQR, 7–11) for cephalexin and levofloxacin, respectively. The composite outcome occurred in 2 patients (4.3%) from the cephalexin group and 0 patients from the levofloxacin group (p=0.50). Positive cultures for resistant GNR were found for 3 patients in the cephalexin group. No patients developed subsequent C. difficile infections. [Image: see text] [Image: see text] [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: Patients who received cephalexin or levofloxacin did not have a significant difference in the composite primary outcome. These findings suggest that oral cephalexin is an effective step-down option to treat uncomplicated GNR bacteremia. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures Oxford University Press 2020-12-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7778101/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.322 Text en © The Author 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://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 (http://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 Poster Abstracts
Leung, Thomas H
Tang, Carolyn G
Ereshefsky, Benjamin
278. Comparison of Oral Cephalexin Versus Oral Levofloxacin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Enterobacterales Bacteremia
title 278. Comparison of Oral Cephalexin Versus Oral Levofloxacin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Enterobacterales Bacteremia
title_full 278. Comparison of Oral Cephalexin Versus Oral Levofloxacin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Enterobacterales Bacteremia
title_fullStr 278. Comparison of Oral Cephalexin Versus Oral Levofloxacin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Enterobacterales Bacteremia
title_full_unstemmed 278. Comparison of Oral Cephalexin Versus Oral Levofloxacin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Enterobacterales Bacteremia
title_short 278. Comparison of Oral Cephalexin Versus Oral Levofloxacin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Enterobacterales Bacteremia
title_sort 278. comparison of oral cephalexin versus oral levofloxacin for treatment of uncomplicated enterobacterales bacteremia
topic Poster Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7778101/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.322
work_keys_str_mv AT leungthomash 278comparisonoforalcephalexinversusorallevofloxacinfortreatmentofuncomplicatedenterobacteralesbacteremia
AT tangcarolyng 278comparisonoforalcephalexinversusorallevofloxacinfortreatmentofuncomplicatedenterobacteralesbacteremia
AT ereshefskybenjamin 278comparisonoforalcephalexinversusorallevofloxacinfortreatmentofuncomplicatedenterobacteralesbacteremia