Cargando…

1601. Combination Therapy versus Monotherapy for Carbapenem-resistant Organisms: Is More Really Better?

BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) represent an urgent public health threat and associated with mortality rates up to 60%. Pharmacotherapy for these infections remain challenging and historically included multiple agents. Meropenem/vaborbactam and ceftazidime/avibactam are options to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Najia, Laila, Carr, Amy, Alexander, Jose, Minor, Sarah B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7778249/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1781
_version_ 1783631091475677184
author Najia, Laila
Carr, Amy
Alexander, Jose
Minor, Sarah B
author_facet Najia, Laila
Carr, Amy
Alexander, Jose
Minor, Sarah B
author_sort Najia, Laila
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) represent an urgent public health threat and associated with mortality rates up to 60%. Pharmacotherapy for these infections remain challenging and historically included multiple agents. Meropenem/vaborbactam and ceftazidime/avibactam are options to treat CRO infections as monotherapy; however, combination therapy is still frequently utilized. Data evaluating outcomes of patients who received combination therapy compared to those receiving monotherapy for CRO infections is limited. METHODS: This retrospective analysis was completed across 7 campuses at AdventHealth Orlando (AHO) from March 2018-October 2019. AHO implemented CRO PCR testing in March 2018, to identify carbapenemase producing CROs (CP-CROs). Inclusion criteria were hospitalization, age ≥ 18 years, culture with CP-CRO detected by PCR, and ≥ 72 hours of either monotherapy or combination therapy. Primary outcome was clinical success, defined as resolution of signs and symptoms of infection and absence of recurrent infection. Secondary outcomes included mean length of therapy, mean length of stay, inpatient mortality, adverse reactions and 30-day all cause readmissions. RESULTS: CRO was isolated 68 times in 59 unique patients (56% male, mean age 62 years). Most common sources included urine (41%), sputum (24%) and wound (22%). Commonly isolated organisms include K. pneumoniae (44%) and E. cloacae (29%). Thirty infections (44%) were polymicrobial and 28 patients (41%) had a secondary source of infection. Forty-three patients (63%) received definitive treatment therapy with a single antibiotic. Monotherapy treated patients had higher rates of treatment success (79% vs 68%, p=0.39), lower in-hospital mortality (4% vs 9%, p=0.066), less nephrotoxicity (6% vs 10%, p=0.084), shorter length of therapy (9.6 vs 13.4 days, p=0.034) and shorter hospital stay (20 vs 34 days, p=0.056). All-cause readmission rates were higher in the monotherapy group (18% vs 9%, p=0.78). Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were reported in 97% of patients. CONCLUSION: Treatment with a single antibiotic for carbapenem-resistant infections can lead to treatment success, while minimizing adverse events, compared to utilizing combination therapy. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7778249
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77782492021-01-07 1601. Combination Therapy versus Monotherapy for Carbapenem-resistant Organisms: Is More Really Better? Najia, Laila Carr, Amy Alexander, Jose Minor, Sarah B Open Forum Infect Dis Poster Abstracts BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) represent an urgent public health threat and associated with mortality rates up to 60%. Pharmacotherapy for these infections remain challenging and historically included multiple agents. Meropenem/vaborbactam and ceftazidime/avibactam are options to treat CRO infections as monotherapy; however, combination therapy is still frequently utilized. Data evaluating outcomes of patients who received combination therapy compared to those receiving monotherapy for CRO infections is limited. METHODS: This retrospective analysis was completed across 7 campuses at AdventHealth Orlando (AHO) from March 2018-October 2019. AHO implemented CRO PCR testing in March 2018, to identify carbapenemase producing CROs (CP-CROs). Inclusion criteria were hospitalization, age ≥ 18 years, culture with CP-CRO detected by PCR, and ≥ 72 hours of either monotherapy or combination therapy. Primary outcome was clinical success, defined as resolution of signs and symptoms of infection and absence of recurrent infection. Secondary outcomes included mean length of therapy, mean length of stay, inpatient mortality, adverse reactions and 30-day all cause readmissions. RESULTS: CRO was isolated 68 times in 59 unique patients (56% male, mean age 62 years). Most common sources included urine (41%), sputum (24%) and wound (22%). Commonly isolated organisms include K. pneumoniae (44%) and E. cloacae (29%). Thirty infections (44%) were polymicrobial and 28 patients (41%) had a secondary source of infection. Forty-three patients (63%) received definitive treatment therapy with a single antibiotic. Monotherapy treated patients had higher rates of treatment success (79% vs 68%, p=0.39), lower in-hospital mortality (4% vs 9%, p=0.066), less nephrotoxicity (6% vs 10%, p=0.084), shorter length of therapy (9.6 vs 13.4 days, p=0.034) and shorter hospital stay (20 vs 34 days, p=0.056). All-cause readmission rates were higher in the monotherapy group (18% vs 9%, p=0.78). Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were reported in 97% of patients. CONCLUSION: Treatment with a single antibiotic for carbapenem-resistant infections can lead to treatment success, while minimizing adverse events, compared to utilizing combination therapy. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures Oxford University Press 2020-12-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7778249/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1781 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
Najia, Laila
Carr, Amy
Alexander, Jose
Minor, Sarah B
1601. Combination Therapy versus Monotherapy for Carbapenem-resistant Organisms: Is More Really Better?
title 1601. Combination Therapy versus Monotherapy for Carbapenem-resistant Organisms: Is More Really Better?
title_full 1601. Combination Therapy versus Monotherapy for Carbapenem-resistant Organisms: Is More Really Better?
title_fullStr 1601. Combination Therapy versus Monotherapy for Carbapenem-resistant Organisms: Is More Really Better?
title_full_unstemmed 1601. Combination Therapy versus Monotherapy for Carbapenem-resistant Organisms: Is More Really Better?
title_short 1601. Combination Therapy versus Monotherapy for Carbapenem-resistant Organisms: Is More Really Better?
title_sort 1601. combination therapy versus monotherapy for carbapenem-resistant organisms: is more really better?
topic Poster Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7778249/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1781
work_keys_str_mv AT najialaila 1601combinationtherapyversusmonotherapyforcarbapenemresistantorganismsismorereallybetter
AT carramy 1601combinationtherapyversusmonotherapyforcarbapenemresistantorganismsismorereallybetter
AT alexanderjose 1601combinationtherapyversusmonotherapyforcarbapenemresistantorganismsismorereallybetter
AT minorsarahb 1601combinationtherapyversusmonotherapyforcarbapenemresistantorganismsismorereallybetter